Acceptable Truths

[uniquemand]

This morning I brushed my teeth. I used a toothbrush and toothpaste and water over a bathroom sink. I used my right hand to hold my toothbrush. I bent my right arm at the elbow. I opened my mouth to expose my teeth to the brushing I felt they needed. I generally used an up and down motion though occasionally I went side to side. I did not swallow the toothpaste.

That is the whole truth and I doubt any great education is required to grasp it. Lol.

Mojo

ps: if I am taking your comments out of context let us just call it, well, having fun with ideas and words and exchanges, of the simple benign variety.

I was just teasing. It's sort of the opposite of telling an acceptable truth: saying absolutely everything that is true.

 

[10oriocookies]

Living as who you really are is truth?

Do you have any choice? I've always been me. I guess that means I've always told the whole truth.

Take a look again, not what i said at all.

 

[Gadfly]

I don't think any of you have told the whole truth, ever, in your lives, to anyone, about anything.

I think you chose which parts to tell people.

Telling the whole truth takes too long, and requires an incredible education.

Well, first. I suppose one would have to KNOW what that truth even is, before one could ever hope to try to communicate that to another. That is often unlikely.

Second, one must have an intention to "tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth" - as best as one can (which as you say, yes, requires a very good education and lots of life experience).

I would say that telling the "whole" truth is probably impossible;, but I think that as with many things, a close approximation can function suitably in its place.

I can explain how various aspects of the Scientology scam function, and while it might not be the "whole truth", it certainly is enough of the truth to make a very valid point about a very real situation and series of nasty continuing behaviors.

"Truth" with regards to physical reality is a matter of honestly describing what has happened, in terms of when, where and how, without exaggeration, embellishment or distortion. THAT is what I try to do, and I recommend it to all.

 

[Xenu's Boyfriend]

With my comment, I was differentiating between what is true, and what is Truth. (Caroline Myss talks about this difference about in her work.)

People may have their own truth about why they are in this forum, for example, but there are deeper, archetypal Truths (capital T) which all of us recognize when it comes to love, justice, honesty, kindness.

While we all come from our own experience which is true - I may come from Kansas, you live in London, she's visiting friends in San Francisco - there are also Universal Truths: All is One, for example, Live In The Present Moment is another. No matter where you move to, no matter where you come from, or your race, sex, class, creed, etc, Universe Truth exists. Personal truth is negotiable, subject to change (which is different from telling a lie). Divine Truth is not.

The problem with Scientology is that there is no higher power, no point of surrender, except to L. Ron Hubbard. Which makes it a cult of personality, an ideology bound to one man's whims. There is no surrender to Truth.

So when Hubbard says, "What is true is true for you...", he's not talking about, "I had eggs this morning, you had pancakes, and that's okay"... what he means is that if you don't have to agree with divine Truth, if it doesn't apply to you. In other words, if you're not crazy about, "Honor Thy Neighbor as Thyself" - just toss it out.

This has nothing to do with a belief in God, per se, because an atheist may still live with universal truth. It is the credo of a sociopath to believe that nothing is outside of his control and that he can do whatever he wants (destructively) without consequences. He can bend reality to fit his own purposes.

But no matter how narcissistic or pathological you are, you can't step outside of Universe Truth. It has a vibration, a life force, and you can no more stand outside of it, than you can stop the Earth from moving by standing still and ordering it to stop. You may even enroll others into your delusion, but the fact is All is One is constant, never changing, and can be summoned up with the chant, "OM". Everything not of Truth will be reconciled. Scientology will come to an end. Institutionalized evil always does.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Yes and No.

As you describe it there is not intention of treating the other individual in an objectified fashion where their acquiescence may be sought in order to profit one's self or otherwise gain some particular advantage. In that sense there is no attempt to manipulate the person contrary to the full understanding and personal will. So that would be the "yes" response.

However, there is still the intent to produce comprehension in the other person of the points you seek to communicate. That reflects a deliberate attempt to create an understanding through manipulation of the tools of communication with regard to your own understanding of the individual with whom you are communicating. That constitutes the "no" response.

The attempt at persuasion is yet a form of manipulation even if there is no deliberate attempt to mislead or take advantage of another's situtation. Intention is significant in how tools are used, but it doesn't alter the function which the tools serve.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION: It's okay to be nice to people.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I prefer to call them Acceptable Whoppers

In a related advertising scheme. . .

BS KING (Hubbard) is the "Home (universe) of the Whopper".

 

[Gadfly]

So when Hubbard says, "What is true is true for you...", he's not talking about, "I had eggs this morning, you had pancakes, and that's okay"... what he means is that if you don't have to agree with divine Truth, if it doesn't apply to you. In other words, if you're not crazy about, "Honor Thy Neighbor as Thyself" - just toss it out.

But he IS talking about what you had for breakfast.

There are many examples, and I will provide a few.

There are the facts about what the Church of Scientology did to Paulette Cooper. This involves exact times, places, events and details about what Scientology did to attempt to destroy her life and make her go insane. These facts are "the truth". But in the Scientology bubble, all members are told an extremely distorted and altered VERSION of "the truth". In fact it is so distorted as to be unrecognizable from the actual truth. Mindless Scio-lemmings walk around with various ideas about such things that have little or nothing to do with REAL and EASILY VERIFIABLE FACTS. They agree with spin manufactured by Int Management, and it is "truth" for them.

I remember being at a few events many years ago. It was obvious to me that various stats were just fabricated, and were totally made up LIES. Now, while I didn't conform and imagine that the stats were legitimate, many just accepted the LIES and had it be "truth". The point is that what was accepted as true, was NOT REALLY TRUE.

One last example, and an easy one. There are no OTs. There have never been OTs. Yet, mindless followers of Hubbard's idiocy choose to accept that there ARE OTs. They accept a truth that does not at all conform to honest observations of reality.

A minimal requirement for truth regarding physical events, is that a person align what is true for them with honest observations of the related subject. To do otherwise is to walk a path of delusion. Now, when involved with an area of uncertainty, where observations are not available, it is fine to accept a claim or an ideal, but be smart enough to realize that THAT is what you are doing.

Then, of course, there is that large realm of judgments that are entirely subjective, and where many people have different truths:

What is your favorite band?

What is your favorite food?

What actor do you detest? (okay, there may be large agreement on THAT one)

What is your favorite season?

For these questions, what is true for you IS true. THAT is how you experience the world. It can be no other way for you. I can't make myself NOT love the taste of garlic shrimp. That I love shrimp is true for me. It may or may not be true for you. But it is still TRUE.

Scientology is so weird because it is often quite content and even willing to LIE, and present false facts as the truth. There are philosophical reasons based on the ideas within Scientology, but I am not going to try to explain that fully right now. Simply:

There are first and foremost postulates. Postulates, once agreed upon, become reality and TRUTH.

THAT is basic Scientology theory. That is Hubbard's viewpoint on "truth".

So, to Hubbard and Scientology, it might be raining outside, yet if a person agreed that it was a sunny day - then THAT would "be the truth".

THAT is insane! And, THAT is Scientology.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

This morning I brushed my teeth. I used a toothbrush and toothpaste and water over a bathroom sink. I used my right hand to hold my toothbrush. I bent my right arm at the elbow. I opened my mouth to expose my teeth to the brushing I felt they needed. I generally used an up and down motion though occasionally I went side to side. I did not swallow the toothpaste.

--snip--

Ron said Scientologists should brush their teeth in The Way To Happiness.
You brushed your teeth.
Therefore you are a Scientologist.


(Acceptable Syllogism)

 

[programmer_guy]

I don't think any of you have told the whole truth, ever, in your lives, to anyone, about anything.

I think you chose which parts to tell people.

Telling the whole truth takes too long, and requires an incredible education.

Not so.

For example, when I test a software feature that has been modified by another software engineer I tell the truth and do not hold back on anything that I have found: good, bad, or insignificant.

Another example, my house inspector (before I bought the house) gave me a report about everything that he checked on (complete with pics) in a pdf file that he emailed to me and I was also there with him as he did the inspection. He didn't "pull any punches" about the details of the condition of the house.

So, I guess that I am not sure what you mean. :confused2:
Would you elaborate a little more?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

But he IS talking about what you had for breakfast.

There are many examples, and I will provide a few.

There are the facts about what the Church of Scientology did to Paulette Cooper. This involves exact times, places, events and details about what Scientology did to attempt to destroy her life and make her go insane. These facts are "the truth". But in the Scientology bubble, all members are told an extremely distorted and altered VERSION of "the truth". In fact it is so distorted as to be unrecognizable from the actual truth. Mindless Scio-lemmings walk around with various ideas about such things that have little or nothing to do with REAL and EASILY VERIFIABLE FACTS. They agree with spin manufactured by Int Management, and it is "truth" for them.

I remember being at a few events many years ago. It was obvious to me that various stats were just fabricated, and were totally made up LIES. Now, while I didn't conform and imagine that the stats were legitimate, many just accepted the LIES and had it be "truth". The point is that what was accepted as true, was NOT REALLY TRUE.

One last example, and an easy one. There are no OTs. There have never been OTs. Yet, mindless followers of Hubbard's idiocy choose to accept that there ARE OTs. They accept a truth that does not at all conform to honest observations of reality.

A minimal requirement for truth regarding physical events, is that a person align what is true for them with honest observations of the related subject. To do otherwise is to walk a path of delusion. Now, when involved with an area of uncertainty, where observations are not available, it is fine to accept a claim or an ideal, but be smart enough to realize that THAT is what you are doing.

Then, of course, there is that large realm of judgments that are entirely subjective, and where many people have different truths:

What is your favorite band?

What is your favorite food?

What actor do you detest? (okay, there may be large agreement on THAT one)

What is your favorite season?

For these questions, what is true for you IS true. THAT is how you experience the world. It can be no other way for you. I can't make myself NOT love the taste of garlic shrimp. That I love shrimp is true for me. It may or may not be true for you. But it is still TRUE.

Scientology is so weird because it is often quite content and even willing to LIE, and present false facts as the truth. There are philosophical reasons based on the ideas within Scientology, but I am not going to try to explain that fully right now. Simply:

There are first and foremost postulates. Postulates, once agreed upon, become reality and TRUTH.

THAT is basic Scientology theory. That is Hubbard's viewpoint on "truth".

So, to Hubbard and Scientology, it might be raining outside, yet if a person agreed that it was a sunny day - then THAT would "be the truth".

THAT is insane! And, THAT is Scientology.

Cool post on ACCEPTABLE TRUTHS!

Here is an UNACCEPTABLE TRUTH to Scientologists.

A Scientologist can have "wins" on lying or just about anything.

This explains a big mystery some people have about the "tech" producing "wins". And a recent example of that happened when I was in a store parking lot and saw a couple shop owners that I knew. We began talking and one of the customers in that conversation seemed to take an interest in me for some reason. I engaged him in conversation wondering what was behind his oddly familiar attitude. After a few deftly clever questions I determined that he had some connection to Florida. I asked where in Florida. Clearwater. Hmmmmm....a couple questions more and I found out he was a Scientologist. Now it was getting interesting. He, of course, had no idea whatesoever of my rather vast experience and knowledge about his "church".

Just for fun I pretended to know a tiny bit about Scientology--the kind of thing a "homo sap" might know from reading the newspaper. To play it through, I salted the conversation with just enough "misunderstoods" about Scientology to convince him that I was a through-and-through "wog". He seemed to like that. So I played on. LOL.

I then asked: "Hey didn't the guy who started Scientology, I forgot his name (he chimed in 'L. Ron Hubbard') do some things that got his wife sent to prison?"

Suddenly, he got this very self-satisfied Scientological glow with twinkling-knowing eyes and a grin to match. Well, he was quite happy to explain that he knew ALL about that because he had at that time been a high ranking executive in the Guardian's Office.This was getting really fun at this point! LOL.

With all the appropriate altitude and certainty of an "OT" he explained that the only thing that actually happened is that "Mary Sue Hubbard used some copy paper".

I am not kidding. He was simply thrilled that he could handle me so easily. It was a real win. In fact, seeing how well I responded to his acceptable truth, he got much more interested in me and wanted to talk more. He asked me for my phone number so we could talk about "business" more (we had earlier chatted briefly about what we both do professionally). I gave him a fake phone number and left.

What was amazing to me was watching him get all VGIs and GLOWY when he delivered the ages-old "handling" of anyone who was concerned that Mary Sue went to federal prison. This guy was F/Ning and winning! LOL.

No doubt he wanted to "disseminate" further to me and get me "on the Bridge" because I was such an "able being" (able to believe his complete cult bullshit).

I have a thousand stories like this. It's one of the reasons I don't pay attention to Scientologists who insist on talking about their "wins".

 

[Gadfly]

Cool post on ACCEPTABLE TRUTHS!

Here is an UNACCEPTABLE TRUTH to Scientologists.

A Scientologist can have "wins" on lying or just about anything.

This explains a big mystery some people have about the "tech" producing "wins". And a recent example of that happened when I was in a store parking lot and saw a couple shop owners that I knew. We began talking and one of the customers in that conversation seemed to take an interest in me for some reason. I engaged him in conversation wondering what was behind his oddly familiar attitude. After a few deftly clever questions I determined that he had some connection to Florida. I asked where in Florida. Clearwater. Hmmmmm....a couple questions more and I found out he was a Scientologist. Now it was getting interesting. He, of course, had no idea whatesoever of my rather vast experience and knowledge about his "church".

Just for fun I pretended to know a tiny bit about Scientology--the kind of thing a "homo sap" might know from reading the newspaper. To play it through, I salted the conversation with just enough "misunderstoods" about Scientology to convince him that I was a through-and-through "wog". He seemed to like that. So I played on. LOL.

I then asked: "Hey didn't the guy who started Scientology, I forgot his name (he chimed in 'L. Ron Hubbard') do some things that got his wife sent to prison?"

Suddenly, he got this very self-satisfied Scientological glow with twinkling-knowing eyes and a grin to match. Well, he was quite happy to explain that he knew ALL about that because he had at that time been a high ranking executive in the Guardian's Office.This was getting really fun at this point! LOL.

With all the appropriate altitude and certainty of an "OT" he explained that the only thing that actually happened is that "Mary Sue Hubbard used some copy paper".

I am not kidding. He was simply thrilled that he could handle me so easily. It was a real win. In fact, seeing how well I responded to his acceptable truth, he got much more interested in me and wanted to talk more. He asked me for my phone number so we could talk about "business" more (we had earlier chatted briefly about what we both do professionally). I gave him a fake phone number and left.

What was amazing to me was watching him get all VGIs and GLOWY when he delivered the ages-old "handling" of anyone who was concerned that Mary Sue went to federal prison. This guy was F/Ning and winning! LOL.

No doubt he wanted to "disseminate" further to me and get me "on the Bridge" because I was such an "able being" (able to believe his complete cult bullshit).

I have a thousand stories like this. It's one of the reasons I don't pay attention to Scientologists who insist on talking about their "wins".

I gave him a fake phone number and left . . . .

No doubt he wanted to "disseminate" further to me and get me "on the Bridge" because I was such an "able being" (able to believe his complete cult bullshit) . . . .

Damn Hoaxster, I just LINE-CHARGED for over a minute. I am coughing. Wait, no actually, I HAD A MAJOR STABLE WIN.

Send me to the Examiner, so that I can share my WINS, get my F/N indicated, and write my wonderful Success Story!!!

Hip, Hip, HOOOOOOOORAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYY!!!!

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Actually 'acceptable truth' is a concept that is intirely un-acceptable to Scientology.. That is.. No truth about Scientology is acceptable to scientology.. And that is a basic PR parameter!

 

[TG1]

And now we're arguing about true truth and truthy truth and degrees of truthiness and absolute truth.



Are there any scientists in the room?

TG1

 

[Rene Descartes]

I gave him a fake phone number and left . . . .

No doubt he wanted to "disseminate" further to me and get me "on the Bridge" because I was such an "able being" (able to believe his complete cult bullshit) . . . .

Damn Hoaxster, I just LINE-CHARGED for over a minute. I am coughing. Wait, no actually, I HAD A MAJOR STABLE WIN.

Send me to the Examiner, so that I can share my WINS, get my F/N indicated, and write my wonderful Success Story!!!

Hip, Hip, HOOOOOOOORAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYY!!!!

Well I am glad that you were able to laugh. Me, I was less fortunate. I became quite despondent over the idea that this guy could actually believed that Mary Sue used some copy paper and that got her sent to prison.

I mean if he believed something as bad as that there is no telling what else he could fall for.

Rd00

 

[Lone Star]

Cool post on ACCEPTABLE TRUTHS!

Here is an UNACCEPTABLE TRUTH to Scientologists.

A Scientologist can have "wins" on lying or just about anything.

This explains a big mystery some people have about the "tech" producing "wins". And a recent example of that happened when I was in a store parking lot and saw a couple shop owners that I knew. We began talking and one of the customers in that conversation seemed to take an interest in me for some reason. I engaged him in conversation wondering what was behind his oddly familiar attitude. After a few deftly clever questions I determined that he had some connection to Florida. I asked where in Florida. Clearwater. Hmmmmm....a couple questions more and I found out he was a Scientologist. Now it was getting interesting. He, of course, had no idea whatesoever of my rather vast experience and knowledge about his "church".

Just for fun I pretended to know a tiny bit about Scientology--the kind of thing a "homo sap" might know from reading the newspaper. To play it through, I salted the conversation with just enough "misunderstoods" about Scientology to convince him that I was a through-and-through "wog". He seemed to like that. So I played on. LOL.

I then asked: "Hey didn't the guy who started Scientology, I forgot his name (he chimed in 'L. Ron Hubbard') do some things that got his wife sent to prison?"

Suddenly, he got this very self-satisfied Scientological glow with twinkling-knowing eyes and a grin to match. Well, he was quite happy to explain that he knew ALL about that because he had at that time been a high ranking executive in the Guardian's Office.This was getting really fun at this point! LOL.

With all the appropriate altitude and certainty of an "OT" he explained that the only thing that actually happened is that "Mary Sue Hubbard used some copy paper".

I am not kidding. He was simply thrilled that he could handle me so easily. It was a real win. In fact, seeing how well I responded to his acceptable truth, he got much more interested in me and wanted to talk more. He asked me for my phone number so we could talk about "business" more (we had earlier chatted briefly about what we both do professionally). I gave him a fake phone number and left.

What was amazing to me was watching him get all VGIs and GLOWY when he delivered the ages-old "handling" of anyone who was concerned that Mary Sue went to federal prison. This guy was F/Ning and winning! LOL.

No doubt he wanted to "disseminate" further to me and get me "on the Bridge" because I was such an "able being" (able to believe his complete cult bullshit).

I have a thousand stories like this. It's one of the reasons I don't pay attention to Scientologists who insist on talking about their "wins".

Wow! This ties in nicely with my recent experience of asking a CoSer about the Farrakhan and Scientology marriage, and how did he feel about Farrakhan's unrepentant practice of still expressing racist charges. I posted his reply on the NOI thread. To paraphrase he essentially said that, "LF isn't really racist, but he knows that he has to use that lingo in order to pull blacks in because black people are just too fucked up to be reached any other way. " (Of course "pulling in" meant to do Scientology now that the NOI is a sister Scientology org now).

Presto!! Bingo!! He handled my question and myself and was at cause! It was a win! Was it the truth or just spin? That doesn't matter....it handled!

 

[Xenu's Boyfriend]

A battered wife tells an acceptable truth when she tells her friends she slipped in the tub, knowing her husband kicked her but she doesn't want him arrested.

An abused child tells the school social worker an acceptable truth when she says that she fell off her bike, knowing her mother broke her arm but she doesn't want her mom to go to jail for abusing her.

Mike Rinder tells an acceptable truth to John Sweeney in "Scientology and Me" and says that David Miscavige never hit him or anyone else because he doesn't want to wreck his standing in the church, even though he has just come from crawling on his hands and knees for two months in The Hole, causing permanent damage.

What is an 'acceptable truth' other than a lie one tells to protect someone who is harming him or others?

 

[Gadfly]

Wow! This ties in nicely with my recent experience of asking a CoSer about the Farrakhan and Scientology marriage, and how did he feel about Farrakhan's unrepentant practice of still expressing racist charges. I posted his reply on the NOI thread. To paraphrase he essentially said that, "LF isn't really racist, but he knows that he has to use that lingo in order to pull blacks in because black people are just too fucked up to be reached any other way. " (Of course "pulling in" meant to do Scientology now that the NOI is a sister Scientology org now).

Presto!! Bingo!! He handled my question and myself and was at cause! It was a win! Was it the truth or just spin? That doesn't matter....it handled!

This brings up the ELITISM that is so prevalent within Scientology and Scientologists (and also in NOI).

The believe so hard that 1) they have the best grasp of the way things are (in the realm of the mind and spirit), and that 2) they have the ONLY solution on Earth that can help people, that they are willing to use any sort of ARC manipulation technique to attract people to Scientology.

They have the idea that it is fine to lie and trick any person into Scientology, because 1) Scientology is what they truly need, and 2) the person will later thank them when on and through the Scientology Bridge.

What the Scientologist says Farrakhan is doing with blacks by attracting them with racist comments is very similar to what Scientology does. Farrakhan uses the best BUTTONS to get blacks to respond by coming in. And he believes that it is fine to deceive them with such trickery because what he has for them is so good, and will change them into something else.

I am sure Farrakhan would love to get and use Hubbard's PR Tech to better slip over his lies. I am sure Farrakhan would love to better understand Hubbard's manipulative ARC Tech, so that he could better "pull them into the NOI".

I really detest when people LIE to others "in their own best interest". I detest the manipulation and the elitist attitude. This is also another example of those who practice: The End Justifies the Means.

Disclaimer: Maybe some of them are so "fucked up" that they actually can't be "pulled in" any other way. Sad, but true. Racism runs deep with some people, and it is a very emotional area that some respond to aggressively and enthusiastically. An interesting moral question is, "Is it better to trick and deceive someone if, in the end, it causes them to more quickly change for the better, faster than they otherwise would?" Of course, the idea is nonsense in Scientology because it never actually changes anyone for the better (not in any of the senses that it claims). The endless manipulative ARC is used to keep the money rolling in.

 

[Xenu's Boyfriend]

This brings up the ELITISM that is so prevalent within Scientology and Scientologists (and also in NOI).

The believe so hard that 1) they have the best grasp of the way things are (in the realm of the mind and spirit), and that 2) they have the ONLY solution on Earth that can help people, that they are willing to use any sort of ARC manipulation technique to attract people to Scientology.

They have the idea that it is fine to lie and trick any person into Scientology, because 1) Scientology is what they truly need, and 2) the person will thank them when on and through the Scientology Bridge.

What the Scientologist says Farrakhan is doing with blacks by attracting them with racist comments is very similar to what Scientology does. Farrakhan uses the best BUTTONS to get blacks to respond by coming in. And he believes that it is fine to deceive them with such trickery because what he has for them is so good, and will change them into something else.

I am sure Farrakhan would love to get and use Hubbard's PR Tech to better slip over his lies. I am sure Farrakhan would love to better understand Hubbard's manipulative ARC Tech, so that he could better "pull them into the NOI".

I really detest when people LIE to others "in their own best interest". I detest the manipulation and the elitist attitude. This is also another example of those who practice: The End Justifies the Means.

Disclaimer: Maybe some of them are so "fucked up" that they actually can't be "pulled in" any other way. Sad, but true. Racism runs deep with some people, and it is a very emotional area that some respond to aggressively and enthusiastically. An interesting moral question is, "Is it better to trick and deceive someone if, in the end, it causes them to more quickly change for the better, faster than they otherwise would?" Of course, the idea is nonsense in Scientology because it never actually changes anyone for the better (not in any of the senses that it claims). The endless manipulative ARC is used to keep the money rolling in.

WOW. This is the FIRST TIME I've ever thought of The Nation of Islam as a cult. Thanks for the posts Lonestar and Gadfly.

How stupid of them to tie their wagon to Scientology. Maybe ten years ago, but now? I know white people who would rather join the NOI, or black people who would rather join the KKK before they stepped foot in an Scientology Ideal Org.

 

[Rene Descartes]

Reading this thread brought back memories of a famous Aesop's Fable.

The Boy Who Cried Acceptable Truth

Or something like that.

Rd00

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Wow! This ties in nicely with my recent experience of asking a CoSer about the Farrakhan and Scientology marriage, and how did he feel about Farrakhan's unrepentant practice of still expressing racist charges. I posted his reply on the NOI thread. To paraphrase he essentially said that, "LF isn't really racist, but he knows that he has to use that lingo in order to pull blacks in because black people are just too fucked up to be reached any other way. " (Of course "pulling in" meant to do Scientology now that the NOI is a sister Scientology org now).

Presto!! Bingo!! He handled my question and myself and was at cause! It was a win! Was it the truth or just spin? That doesn't matter....it handled!

LOL

EX-SCIENTOLOGIST
What if I told you that there is evidence directly linking Louis
Farrakhan in the Fair Game murder of Malcolm X?

SCIENTOLOGIST
That sounds like 1.1 gossip and enemy line.
DOX or GDTFU (get declared the fuck up).

EX-SCIENTOLOGIST
Oh, but Farrakhan actually r-factored his cult that Malcolm X
was "worthy of death"! What do you say about that?

SCIENTOLOGIST
I say Reverend Farrakhan really had his ethics in and
his confront of evil was so high that he made it go right
to do the greatest good for the dynamics and kept his
integrity in by not fearing to hurt another in a just cause.

EX SCIENTOLOGIST
So, murdering someone is not an outpoint?

SCIENTOLOGIST
Outpoint? LOL. It's actually a win that he only had to murder one
wog so he could get on the Bridge and help bring about a world
without insanity, war and criminality! ​

Farrakhan Admission On Malcolm X
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan admits in a 60 Minutes interview broadcast Sunday and reported on Wednesday's CBS Evening News that his incendiary rhetoric played a role in the 1965 assassination of civil rights leader Malcolm X.

Farrakhan makes the statements to Malcolm X’s daughter, Atallah Shabazz, and 60 MinutesCorrespondent Mike Wallace.

"I may have been complicit in words that I spoke leading up to February 21 [1965]," Farrakhan tells Shabazz and Wallace. "I acknowledge that and regret that any word that I have said caused the loss of life of a human being."

Shabazz later issued a statement thanking Farrakhan for acknowledging his role and said: "I wish him peace." However, she did not forgive him.

Malcolm X was only 39 years old when he was killed. This month, he would have been 75.

The former Malcolm Little was Farrakhan's mentor in the Nation of Islam—for a time, they both believed that the white man was evil and that the black and white races should live separately.

In 1964, Malcolm X revealed publicly that Elijah Mohammed, the leader of the Nation of Islam, was guilty of impregnating several of his teenage secretaries, in direct violation of his own preachings against sex outside of marriage.

Farrakhan was outraged. He called Malcolm X a traitor and wrote, two months before the killing, that: "such a man is worthy of death."

Three men with ties to the Nation of Islam were convicted in the slaying in the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem on Feb. 21, 1965.​