Scientology is all bad

[Claire Swazey]

hence all the many posts bitching about it...

 

[Veda]

Yes, a huge upset. I see it very clearly. There is also the matter of people being afraid of "OT" abilities. Scares the shit out of some, perhaps only subconsciously.

That's a Scientology "stable datum": The "Wogs," "Homo Saps," "DBs," and "SPs" are supposed to "terrified" of "OTs."

Scientology is an elitist system, loaded with scales and charts, grades and titles, including insulting names for people at "lower awareness levels."

It's funny watching them complaining about being "called names."

 

[Infinite]

That's a Scientology "stable datum": The "Wogs," "Homo Saps," "DBs," and "SPs" are supposed to "terrified" of the "OTs . . . <snip> . . .

Here's an OTVIII in full flight . . . I'm shaking in my boots:

[video]http://youtu.be/jCGm8mgScLE[/video]​

 

[PirateAndBum]

That's a Scientology "stable datum": The "Wogs," "Homo Saps," "DBs," and "SPs" are supposed to "terrified" of "OTs."

Scientology is an elitist system, loaded with scales and charts, grades and titles, including insulting names for people at "lower awareness levels."

It's funny watching them complaining about being "called names."

I think it goes beyond that Veda. The US Gov't was quite unsettled by Russian psi work. Remote viewing was considered to be both highly dangerous and useful to the security minded fellows in the NSA and CIA.

I don't think that's a stable datum of Scientologists. It certainly wasn't mine. But it is in how you stated it: "are supposed to be". No they aren't supposed to be. Hubbard put forward that humanoid "are" afraid of OTs based on the supposed history of conflicts. Is that true? I don't know. Is it false? I don't know. Is it logical? Yes, I think one could make the case that an individual that had powers of destruction would be seen as dangerous. The mere ability to remote view is quite dangerous. So it's not an unwarranted uneasiness.

And that is a much more cogent reason why such abilities if they exist, will not be displayed for all to see. You end up with men in black suits at your door offering you new employment.

 

[Sydney]

Hahaha I think you guys just help explain some weird ass questions my scieno stalker asked me prior to me cottoning on tha he was stalking me, point in case he seemed to really REALLY want to know what I thought of his boss who was paying him 1200 a week on paper but in reality pocketing it and giving him a 50 a week allowance.
I'm getting the picture now his boss must have been one of these OT guys, here's a sample of the convo with the poor dupe:
"so what do you think of my boss?"
Me"the guy that's paying you right?"
"yeah him"
Me"yeah hes a bit of a douche aye lol, dunno why your still working for him"
"whys he a douche?"
Me" ..., you tell me yor the guy he's ripping off"
"forget about that I told you he pays me properly, back to why you .... Fear him"
Me"fear him? Who said that? I could tear that guy a new asshole he's a weed"
"so you feel threatened by him?"
Me"I hardly even know the guy, why would I be threatened by him?"
"..."
Me" what are you even doing here aren't you meant to be upstairs?"

 

[Infinite]

I think it goes beyond that Veda. The US Gov't was quite unsettled by Russian psi work. Remote viewing was considered to be both highly dangerous and useful to the security minded fellows in the NSA and CIA.

I don't think that's a stable datum of Scientologists. It certainly wasn't mine. But it is in how you stated it: "are supposed to be". No they aren't supposed to be. Hubbard put forward that humanoid "are" afraid of OTs based on the supposed history of conflicts. Is that true? I don't know. Is it false? I don't know. Is it logical? Yes, I think one could make the case that an individual that had powers of destruction would be seen as dangerous. The mere ability to remote view is quite dangerous. So it's not an unwarranted uneasiness.

And that is a much more cogent reason why such abilities if they exist, will not be displayed for all to see. You end up with men in black suits at your door offering you new employment.

Never mind OTs with remote-viewing abilities and destructive powers who are being kept hidden in a supah sekrit eeeevil government organisation run by men in black - show me a motherfucking Clear. Just one.

 

[Smilla]

Never mind OTs with remote-viewing abilities and destructuve powers who are being kept hidden in a supah sekrit eeeevil government organisation run by men in black - show me a motherfucking Clear. Just one.

Hubbard would have like to have seen one too, but he never got to see one either.

 

[PirateAndBum]

Never mind OTs with remote-viewing abilities and destructive powers who are being kept hidden in a supah sekrit eeeevil government organisation run by men in black - show me a motherfucking Clear. Just one.

can you define what it is you are asking to be shown?

A DMSMH clear? Clearly there is no such animal

That's usually what those that ask to be shown a clear mean by a clear.

 

[Veda]

I think it goes beyond that Veda. The US Gov't was quite unsettled by Russian psi work. Remote viewing was considered to be both highly dangerous and useful to the security minded fellows in the NSA and CIA.

I don't think that's a stable datum of Scientologists. It certainly wasn't mine. But it is in how you stated it: "are supposed to be". No they aren't supposed to be. Hubbard put forward that humanoid "are" afraid of OTs based on the supposed history of conflicts. Is that true? I don't know. Is it false? I don't know. Is it logical? Yes, I think one could make the case that an individual that had powers of destruction would be seen as dangerous. The mere ability to remote view is quite dangerous. So it's not an unwarranted uneasiness.

And that is a much more cogent reason why such abilities if they exist, will not be displayed for all to see. You end up with men in black suits at your door offering you new employment.

With Dianetics, people, including the government, were supposed to be terrified of what might be uncovered in Dianetic counselling, since - so the idea went - Dianetics finally made previously inaccessible unconscious content accessible. All those guilty mothers who had attempted abortions would be anti-Dianetics, and all those CIA types that had "PDHed" people, would be anti-Dianetics, etc.

With Scientology, it was the "homo saps" that were supposed to be terrified - thus Hubbard's advice in 'What to Audit', a.k.a. 'History of Man', not to do any demonstrations of super abilities just yet, but to wait a bit.

It's doubtful that the USA government was as concerned with psi abilities as the Scientologists would like to believe, but there was always an interest by a few, and this is why, even in World War II, psychics were occasionally consulted, but it was a lark - something to check-out as a last resort, and was never practical.

Hubbard knew this too, which is why he belittled the idea of the use of anything "psychic," in spying, or clandestine activities.

Like the "OT levels," the most successful action done concerning "Remote Viewing" is the selling of courses in "Remote Viewing" to eager would-be Remote Viewers, credit cards in hand. Other than that, it's been a disappointment.

 

[Smilla]

can you define what it is you are asking to be shown?

A DMSMH clear? Clearly there is no such animal

That's usually what those that ask to be shown a clear mean by a clear.

Lets make it a bit easier then.

A Clear is someone who thinks they're a Clear.

That's a more realistic definition, but unfortunately very far removed from Hubbard's claims.

 

[PirateAndBum]

They kept Ingo busy for 17 years. Russians spent considerable millions on such research.

Other than that, it's been a disappointment.

Perhaps this is so. Perhaps we don't know all the facts.

My point is that such abilities (if they exist) are unsettling, and not because HubDub said so.

 

[Bill]

can you define what it is you are asking to be shown?

A DMSMH clear? Clearly there is no such animal

That's usually what those that ask to be shown a clear mean by a clear.

I do hate when Scientologists try so desperately to wiggle out of the official definitions of "Clear" and "Reactive Mind" so that Scientology's failures can be justified. They refer to the "DMSMH Clear" as if that were no longer actually used to define "Clear".

By definition, a Clear is a person "without their reactive mind". That definition is used to this day. The "reactive mind" is claimed to be the source of all mental problems, mental limitations, psychosomatic illnesses, memory problems, etc, etc.

Therefore, a "Clear" by definition, would be a person without any mental problems, without any mental limitations, without any psychosomatic illnesses, without any memory problems, etc, etc. The "Reactive Mind" is alleged to be "gone" so all those manifestations of it must also be gone.

So, to demand a Scientologist "show me a mother fucking Clear" means show me a person that matches the only definition of Clear that has been consistently used by Scientololgy since the very first book: "A person without their reactive mind".

And, as you said, such a person does not exist.

Bill

 

[Veda]

They kept Ingo busy for 17 years. Russians spent considerable millions on such research.



Perhaps this is so. Perhaps we don't know all the facts.

My point is that such abilities (if they exist) are unsettling, and not because HubDub said so.

Do you think that Ingo Swann was spying on Scientology as a precursor to the USA government take-over of Scientology?

Did you know that Pat Price confirmed that there were between-life-implant stations on Earth, including at locations given by Hubbard in his lectures?

IMO, Ingo Swann was a natural psychic - to the extent that he was psychic - but he wasn't exempt from behaving foolishly, as he demonstrated at the height of his Scientology involvement.

Why don't you think Hubbard utilized the "OT" abilities of his own "OTs" in his own spying network?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... But there is a preponderance of Hubbardites in the FZ/Indy movements.

That's really only true among Marty's brand of Independents. The freezone tends to be a far more eclectic bunch. There are those who consider themselves loyal to hubbard there too, Rey being one example; but such individuals do not form a preponderance of the freezone.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

What happens when the topic is the person ...

Deliberately targeting a person as a topic for discussion on the board is both innately rude and a violation of board standards of behavior & mutual courtesy.

However for the record, where a person is himself considered a legitimate topic under discussion, as may be the case with for example l. ron hubbard, then the statement of facts concerning that person does not constitute an example of an argumentum ad hominem. Deliberate insults however would still be rude, inappropriate and, as in the case of hubbard, pointless.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I do hate when Scientologists try so desperately to wiggle out of the official definitions of "Clear" and "Reactive Mind" so that Scientology's failures can be justified. They refer to the "DMSMH Clear" as if that were no longer actually used to define "Clear".

By definition, a Clear is a person "without their reactive mind". That definition is used to this day. The "reactive mind" is claimed to be the source of all mental problems, mental limitations, psychosomatic illnesses, memory problems, etc, etc.

Therefore, a "Clear" by definition, would be a person without any mental problems, without any mental limitations, without any psychosomatic illnesses, without any memory problems, etc, etc. The "Reactive Mind" is alleged to be "gone" so all those manifestations of it must also be gone.

So, to demand a Scientologist "show me a mother fucking Clear" means show me a person that matches the only definition of Clear that has been consistently used by Scientololgy since the very first book: "A person without their reactive mind".

And, as you said, such a person does not exist.

Bill

That is certainly one line of thinking. Another is to recognize that there have been several conflicting definitions of clear made over the years, see tech dictionary for obvious examples. Accordingly the term may be seen as ambiguous and accordingly there can be many different ways to understand the word, yours included.

On the whole, tolerance of different viewpoints tends to be a valuable characteristic.


Mark A. Baker

 

[degraded being]

That is certainly one line of thinking. Another is to recognize that there have been several conflicting definitions of clear made over the year, see tech dictionary of obvious examples. Accordingly the term may be seen as ambiguous and accordingly there can be many different ways to understand the word, yours included.

On the whole, tolerance of different viewpoints tends to be a valuable characteristic.


Mark A. Baker

Moar Culty word spinning.

 

[Bill]

That is certainly one line of thinking. Another is to recognize that there have been several conflicting definitions of clear made over the years, see tech dictionary for obvious examples. Accordingly the term may be seen as ambiguous and accordingly there can be many different ways to understand the word, yours included.

On the whole, tolerance of different viewpoints tends to be a valuable characteristic.

Mark A. Baker

Now, I'm not talking about variant versions of Scientology. I am talking specifically about adherents who still use the definition of Clear as "a person without his or her reactive mind". This is, in my experience, one of the standard, agreed upon and most used definitions of Clear amongst mainstream Scientologists. This WAS the go to definition Scientology used during my whole time in Scientology. I know you deny it but I was there and that's what I saw, time after time in promo after promo.

Of course, current believers outside of the church would rather not continue promising things they know they can't and won't deliver, but that doesn't change Scientology's history of false promises and failed results and doesn't change the fact that Scientology has for many, many years used DMSMH as the primary introductory text but never, ever includes a disclaimer in that book "The definition of Clear in this book is bogus and we've never produced even one".

It's a promise and it is false.

I have never heard or seen a Scientologist ever admit, "No, a Clear has not gotten rid of his reactive mind" but I've heard many recommend reading DMSMH.

Now, are you trying to accuse me of intolerance of differing viewpoints? If so, please be specific as to when I did so and what I said. Otherwise, you are, once again spouting generalities and make-wrong without any actual evidence.

I have frequently said that what a person believes is their own fucking business and they should not be criticised for it. What I am talking about here is one of Scientology's primary promises and the efforts some Scientologists have gone through to justify the failure to deliver.

Is it your contention that people should never mention Scientology's false promises because "it would be intolerant"? Is your point that I am just an evil person? Just make your point plain, will you and stop with the vague generalities and innuendos.

Thanks so much,
Bill

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Is it your contention that people should never mention Scientology's false promises because "it would be intolerant"? ...

Not at all. False promises are a fact of hubbard, the church, and those enamored of ron. I am all for statements of fact. Facts are what persuade people as to the validity of a given argument.

With regard to the term clear, the definition you cite is certainly one of the definitions offered up by hubbard over the years, arguably the primary one. However, there are several other definitions that have been given (e.g. see the tech dictionary), not all of which are mutually consistent or unambiguous.

I personally am in complete agreement that most of the claims of hubbard were either completely false or so excessive as to amount to nearly the same. Moreover this was deliberate as it constitutes a marketing ploy by hubbard. Nonetheless, there was often a germ of truth in many of the claims he made, although his representations were intentionally sensationalistic.

As I've said before, I find for myself that the discussion David Mayo wrote of the state of clear makes far more sense with regard to the actual state than do hubbard's many contradictory and hyperbolic statements on the topic. Whether or not David remains of a similar mindset nonetheless his words still describe the reality of the state far better than anything else I've yet seen.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

-snip-

I find for myself that the discussion David Mayo wrote of the state of clear makes far more sense with regard to the actual state than do hubbard's many contradictory and hyperbolic statements on the topic. Whether or not David remains of a similar mindset nonetheless his words still describe the reality of the state far better than anything else I've yet seen.


Mark A. Baker

Excerpt from the 1991 David Mayo article, and a link to the complete article: http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html

Clear

"It was PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were 'clear' at a certain point...

"[Clear] is not an attainable state (at least given our present level of technology)."

David Mayo ceased being a Scientologist because he was honest - Honest with others, and honest with himself.