Are SP declares still happening or not? A/o Know?

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
+ John McMaster

But, that doesn't mean anything. Being 'Source' means never having to be bound by your own blather.

Zinj
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
How do you know that Hubbard was in hiding for about a decade? Did you witness that? How do you know that he had strokes? Did you witness them or diagnose them?
How do you know that he issued or authorized anything? Did YOU witness him doing so? How can you be certain that he even knew about anything issued in his name?

I’ve never been to Antarctica, but I’m pretty certain that it is very cold. In fact, I’d bet my house on it.

How can I say this if I never personally witnessed it? OT superpowers?

Or how about documented evidence and eye-witness accounts?

Hubbard gave thousands of public lectures, ran numerous seminars and congresses and was generally very publicly visible in the ‘early’ days of Scientology. This stopped after the end of the 1960s as far as I know. Do you know of any documented public appearances after this time?

According to eye-witness accounts, from the mid 1970s onwards, only a handful of his closest staff ever met with him. (see interviews given to Russell Miller for his book ‘Bare-faced Messiah’)

The strokes were referred to by several people, including his own personal physician, Gene Denk.

If you have any evidence that contradicts this, I would be very interested to see it.

I’m not bothered about being right or wrong here, if you can come up with any that shows my statements are wrong, I’ll admit that I was wrong. I’m just interested in finding out the truth.

Axiom142
 

Smitty

Silver Meritorious Patron
comment to Alanzo

Good points.
I think the correction of "the Basics" has made it abundantly clear that Ron had no clue of anything he published from 1948 on.

The view that Hubbard engendered was that there were boogeymen (that he called SPs) and their minions (that he called DBs who only take orders from SPs) who were overtly or covertly, but constantly and continously trying to harm or destroy anything that he or his organization did. His most ardent followers embrace that delusion.
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
Axiom142

I've also seen an ‘LRH’ reference, where Hubbard says something like “You won’t find real SPs in our organisations, etc”, the implication being that dedicated Scientologists couldn’t be SPs. Can’t place it yet, but I’ll look through my PTS / SP course pack and see if it is in there.

But in any case, Hubbard didn’t seem to have any problem with Doublethink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Think

Axiom142
 

Smitty

Silver Meritorious Patron
reply to Axiom142

I was challenging the very questions that you pose in this post: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=193525&postcount=57
with your own style. You seem to be operating on a double standard here.
I’ve never been to Antarctica, but I’m pretty certain that it is very cold. In fact, I’d bet my house on it.
How can I say this if I never personally witnessed it? OT superpowers?
Or how about documented evidence and eye-witness accounts?
Hubbard gave thousands of public lectures, ran numerous seminars and congresses and was generally very publicly visible in the ‘early’ days of Scientology. This stopped after the end of the 1960s as far as I know. Do you know of any documented public appearances after this time?
According to eye-witness accounts, from the mid 1970s onwards, only a handful of his closest staff ever met with him. (see interviews given to Russell Miller for his book ‘Bare-faced Messiah’)
The strokes were referred to by several people, including his own personal physician, Gene Denk.
If you have any evidence that contradicts this, I would be very interested to see it.
I’m not bothered about being right or wrong here, if you can come up with any that shows my statements are wrong, I’ll admit that I was wrong. I’m just interested in finding out the truth.
Axiom142
I acknowledge that you are interested in "the truth", but to a scientologist, that can be literally anything that one believes.
I am interested in facts.
 

Pascal

Silver Meritorious Patron
I had a friend named Melanie Murray who was a Class 8 and who worked with both Hubbard and Mayo in the late 1970's and early 1980's. She also worked with Ray Mithoff who is named as the author of this.

She never said that Mayo was declared without Hubbard's knowledge, or against Hubbard's will, etc. She was declared at the time of Mayo, as well. But she worked herself back into good graces with the Church and she is a Flag HGC auditor today, last I heard.

But hey - maybe Ron really did say that we should never declare anyone who has been with us for more than 2 years.

What about Otto Roos?

Don Purcell? (although he was not "declared" actually)

Dr Winter?

L Ron Hubbard, Jr? (Nibs)

Hubbard had a very consistent habit of discrediting and jettisoning people who had worked closely with him for many many years, usually in highly placed and trusted positions.

Stalin had the same problem, I hear.

The idea that Hubbard sai that we don't declare people who had been with us for more than two years goes against the very reason for declares in the first place: to weed out those who know too much and who might keep talking.

He might have lied and said we don't do that, though, too.

But he sure did it.

Maybe he was under a lot of stress and had no choice. Things can get desperate surrounded by idiots as he was at the time.

I'm curious about the "Bird Dog" thing in the Story of a Squirrel thing. Any know of "whom" might have "sent" Mayo to "wreck" the Church?

Marcab? Bilderberg group? Sounds like crock to me. I'll crush that SOED paragraph by paragraph in a new post soon as it's full of HE&R and SP talk.

Let's unmock DM's lies one by one.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Let's unmock *Ron's* lies one by one. Davey is just the odor of the turd.

If Scientology *worked* how could Ron *possibly* have been too 'stressed'?

He Had 'The Tech' :)

Zinj
 

Pascal

Silver Meritorious Patron
Let's unmock *Ron's* lies one by one. Davey is just the odor of the turd.

If Scientology *worked* how could Ron *possibly* have been too 'stressed'?

He Had 'The Tech' :)

Zinj

Hubbard was a writer and sailor. He wasn't a prophet or great leader. This wasn't his game and he sucked at it. Plus he was surrounded by boobs. He was very patient and had a very tolerant acceptance level.

As for DM the pitbull, his reign is over and his grave dug.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Ron was 'Source'. That's the essence of Scientology. If Ron was just 'some guy', then Scientology is just 'some stuff'.

Zinj
 

HCObringOrder?

Silver Meritorious Patron
Hats off to Rog.

It goes back to the original 1962 LRH view of things. The think being that an R/S is based on an opposing intention. It's not necessarily evil, just violently in opposition . . . indeed we used to use R/S reads to list off items/opposing items on "line plots" or packages of our own case items at one time.

When LRH came up with his Scn List One (not to be confused with the List One (L1) used for upset handlings), the think morphed into becoming that anyone who had opposing intentions to Scn obviously had evil intent, and was evil - - - see the think?

It later, further morphed into R/S equals evil intent . . . which in precise terms, is not actually true. AN R/S is simply reading on the colossal conflict deep in the case on two violently opposed intentions.

Rog

Thank you, that helped to clean up my MU.
Refering back to the Declare I saw, I remember at the time thinking that an R/S was a case item, and did not belong in a Declare.
:grouch:
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Hubbard was a writer and sailor. He wasn't a prophet or great leader. This wasn't his game and he sucked at it. Plus he was surrounded by boobs. He was very patient and had a very tolerant acceptance level.

As for DM the pitbull, his reign is over and his grave dug.

I'd like you to consider something, Pascal.

If you will read over your post and think about the definition of "justification", I think you will find that your post is a long string of justifications for LRH.

You do know that you can justify the overts of others, right? And those justifications can keep those overts held in, just like when you justify your own overts.

No need to justify overts, yours or anyone else's.

Especially Ron's.
 

Pascal

Silver Meritorious Patron
I'd like you to consider something, Pascal.

If you will read over your post and think about the definition of "justification", I think you will find that your post is a long string of justifications for LRH.

You do know that you can justify the overts of others, right? And those justifications can keep those overts held in, just like when you justify your own overts.

No need to justify overts, yours or anyone else's.

Especially Ron's.

I don't blame LRH for trying to do something above his capacity. If you see a house on fire and you're not a fireman, would you ignore it? Or go in and try to save people and maybe in the process fuck up (since you're not a fireman) and commit some wrong actions but saving a few lives?

I think you're half-empty and I'm half-full on the glass thing. :coolwink:
 

Iknowtoomuch

Gold Meritorious Patron
I don't blame LRH for trying to do something above his capacity. If you see a house on fire and you're not a fireman, would you ignore it? Or go in and try to save people and maybe in the process fuck up (since you're not a fireman) and commit some wrong actions but saving a few lives?

I think you're half-empty and I'm half-full on the glass thing. :coolwink:


Save lives?? Remember the tech works for EVERYONE. Even those driven to schizophrenia by Scientology.
 

Pascal

Silver Meritorious Patron
Save lives?? Remember the tech works for EVERYONE. Even those driven to schizophrenia by Scientology.

When applied correctly to stable results, etc...

Studying Karate for 1 month will give you just enough confidence to get your ass kicked too, doesn't mean Karate sucks.
 

Pascal

Silver Meritorious Patron
Oh yes the "if applied correctly" line.:whistling:

When you realise a moron is running CoS and how this foments a culture of idiocy within the entire organization you can understand that Scientology is not applied as well as it may be.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
When you realise a moron is running CoS and how this foments a culture of idiocy within the entire organization you can understand that Scientology is not applied as well as it may be.

Another justification.

Listen Pascal.

I realize that not everyone has had the experience in Scientology that I have had. The sum total of some people's experiences with and in Scn turned out to be, overall, beneficial to them.

They will tend to accentuate the positive in LRH's motives. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Except.

I think that you are intentionally remaining ignorant of critical thinking skills and the points that people are making that run counter to your own beliefs.

I actually think that you are intentionally looking away from the points that people are making and not studying their ideas for yourself and coming up with your own answers about them.

This is a dangerous practice for anyone, not just a Scientologist.

It's also what pussies and losers do: They never truly seek to confront and understand the points that argue against their own beliefs, and so they never truly test whether what they believe is actually true.

They are cowards and they are weak.

Don't be one of them. Seek to truly understand the points that people make who argue with you. Show that you have the cajones to listen, and to look. And then come right back with an even better argument against them - an argument based on a thorough understanding of where they are actually wrong.

That's what real men do.
 
Top