Does the Freezone help in dismantling the CofS?

[Terril park]

No, U, they got "in" because they had some interest. Buying the book or being marketed to were merely ways of encouraging the interest. Nonetheless, they made a choice to involve themselves. For many that was the only interest they had. They did it because others did, or because they believed they would become supermen and see women's bodies under their clothing , or some other such nonsense. Needless to say, such folk as these tended to be disappointed.

For many others, as Roger indicates, they saw the tools of the subject of scientology as relevant to their own goals & pursuits. Not so oddly, these latter are often those who got the most benefit and experienced the least difficulty as a result of their involvement with the Co$.


Mark A. Baker

What ye seek ye shall find. [Terril 1.1]

Seeking to see through womans clothes is a seeking that violates the rules of this game we are in [physical universe]

Such dumb asses clearly need to get laid. Nuff said.

 

[Dulloldfart]

A lot of nonsensical hot air. Most of the FZ does standard tech or very close.

Bullshit.

I blew that one out of the water in 2004: http://fzglobal.org/comparison.htm, which was a quantitative assessment using nearly 200 elements that go to make it up. My assessment conclusion at the time was that, "In summary, as fairly as I could do this, I assessed the CofS in the 1970s as delivering 83% Standard Tech; the CofS in PT as delivering 70% Standard Tech; a hypothetical "typical" FZ practitioner today as delivering 87% Standard Tech; Robert Ducharme as delivering 85% Standard Tech; and Ron's Orgs at 87% (based on a comment that the only difference between Ron's Orgs and other FZ people is they do an entity handling different to NOTs and also do some OT Courses.)"

Also see my recent article on ESMB, Standard Tech (Hooray!) and Squirrel Tech (boo hiss), which shows that both Hubbard's and the FZ idea of "Standard Tech" is pretty meaningless.

"Standard Tech" is a marketing and PR buzzword (er, or two) and nothing more.

Paul

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

I think we had a poll here- might've been one of mine- where people talked about what got them in...

I got suckered into it through the cult's deceptive marketing, I believed Dianetics was a work of non-fiction based on scientific study, instead of a book of nonsense and pipe dreams.

Who wouldn't want "The Handbook On The Human Mind"?

Hubbard was marketed as a scientist and engineer, not the con man and fiction writer, in fact little was even mentioned about his science fiction writing.

Little did I know, it was nothing more than jacking off your frontal lobes into a state of laughter through suggestive commands while under hypnosis. And then writing Success stories to convince myself the nonsense is doing something of value.

I can understand using hypnosis and regressive therapy to uncover traumatic experiences if there is indeed a reason to believe repressed events are causing a person problems, but to use it as a one size fits all solution is asinine and ends up causing far more harm than good.

Lucky for me my bullshit detector never allowed me to turn off my skepticism and I soon got turned off by the sense of urgency to save the planet by emptying my bank account.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Seeking to see through womans clothes is a seeking that violates the rules of this game we are in [physical universe]

Never heard of T-rays, or backscatter? Latest news about TSA pervs and airport scanners?

Paul

 

[Veda]

Bullshit.

I blew that one out of the water in 2004: http://fzglobal.org/comparison.htm, which was a quantitative assessment using nearly 200 elements that go to make it up. My assessment conclusion at the time was that, "In summary, as fairly as I could do this, I assessed the CofS in the 1970s as delivering 83% Standard Tech; the CofS in PT as delivering 70% Standard Tech; a hypothetical "typical" FZ practitioner today as delivering 87% Standard Tech; Robert Ducharme as delivering 85% Standard Tech; and Ron's Orgs at 87% (based on a comment that the only difference between Ron's Orgs and other FZ people is they do an entity handling different to NOTs and also do some OT Courses.)"

Also see my recent article on ESMB, Standard Tech (Hooray!) and Squirrel Tech (boo hiss), which shows that both Hubbard's and the FZ idea of "Standard Tech" is pretty meaningless.

"Standard Tech" is a marketing and PR buzzword (er, or two) and nothing more.

Paul

The FZ thinks it does Standard Tech, and says it does Standard Tech.

IMO, there has never been such a thing as Standard Tech - really - in either $cientology or FZ Scientology - except in people's imaginations.

And, IMO, this so called "Standard Tech" contains toxic elements, which become more so as the person is led up the "Standard Bridge."

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

The FZ thinks it does Standard Tech, and says it does Standard Tech.

IMO, there has never been such a thing as Standard Tech - really - in either $cientology or FZ Scientology - except in people's imaginations.

And, IMO, this imaginary "Standard Tech" contains toxic elements, which become more so as the person is led up the "Standard Bridge."

Do you think the guy who wrote the Xenu story in the Marvel Comic Book Hubbard stole OTIII from, considered his Comic Book ... "Standard Tech"?

I wonder if he ever knew his comic book was turned into a batshit crazy UFO cult, that people still worship today?

 

[Dulloldfart]

The FZ thinks it does Standard Tech, and says it does Standard Tech.

IMO, there has never been such a thing as Standard Tech - really - in either $cientology or FZ Scientology - except in people's imaginations.

And, IMO, this so called "Standard Tech" contains toxic elements, which become more so as the person is led up the "Standard Bridge."

Agreed.

Paul

 

[Free Being Me]

More accurately it is demonstrating to the victims of a known destructive cult that THAT WHICH THEY VALUE is available without the associated destructive control outside of the cult. Furthermore, they don't have to limit their thoughts, considerations, or contacts in order to associate with freezoners.


Since it isn't a collective it won't collectively be packaging & marketing anything.


Mark A. Baker

I'm glad we both agree $ci is a destructive cult. Basicly a person is leaving/ has left the Co$ and the FZ is there to help that person with, say, 500 different individual brands of $ci? The way help is giving said victim more of what was harming that person?

"THAT WHICH THEY VALUE is available without the associated destructive control outside the church"..... That assumes the person leaving still has positive beliefs regarding primarily the auditing tech, seeing DM as the sole problem, not Hubbard creating the cult in the first place.

I have no regrets leaving $ci although I admit some doubts did lurk for many years. All of which have been dispelled finding ESMB. I can't explain that but I did. Frankly, if I had been approached by a FZer early on I just might have checked it out. Don't be offended but I'm glad that opportunity never occured.

IMO people leaving a cult don't need splinter groups recruiting them.

 

[uniquemand]

I did check it out. It didn't kill me. In fact, I found it very helpful. It's not for everyone. Some people will benefit from it. Others will get taken by conmen. Some will benefit from being taken by conmen. It's hard to say.

My view is that most of the people I met in the FZ were very good people doing what they thought was right, and I found them invaluable resources on my journey out of that belief system.

YMMV.

 

[Terril park]

Bullshit.

I blew that one out of the water in 2004: http://fzglobal.org/comparison.htm, which was a quantitative assessment using nearly 200 elements that go to make it up. My assessment conclusion at the time was that, "In summary, as fairly as I could do this, I assessed the CofS in the 1970s as delivering 83% Standard Tech; the CofS in PT as delivering 70% Standard Tech; a hypothetical "typical" FZ practitioner today as delivering 87% Standard Tech; Robert Ducharme as delivering 85% Standard Tech; and Ron's Orgs at 87% (based on a comment that the only difference between Ron's Orgs and other FZ people is they do an entity handling different to NOTs and also do some OT Courses.)"

Also see my recent article on ESMB, Standard Tech (Hooray!) and Squirrel Tech (boo hiss), which shows that both Hubbard's and the FZ idea of "Standard Tech" is pretty meaningless.

"Standard Tech" is a marketing and PR buzzword (er, or two) and nothing more.

Paul

Your quoted stats seem to indicate that " Standard tech" is best obtained in the FZ.

You being a straight man for me?

I'm not enamored of the term " standard tech" nor of the PL KSW1.

It is what I promote. People want to go off and explore other varieties
I have no problem.

Getting people out of COS promoting " Squirrel Tech" isn't useful.

Tech varies from the beginners to those who are class IV, VI, VIII and
this brings us to the area of those researching how to improve tech.

I see all as valid.

 

[Terril park]

Never heard of T-rays, or backscatter? Latest news about TSA pervs and airport scanners?

Paul

No! Dunno what TSA is but I think I'll apply for a job at my local and one of the world's busiest airports, Heathrow.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Your quoted stats seem to indicate that " Standard tech" is best obtained in the FZ.

You being a straight man for me?

Maybe by accident.

The usual phrase of "100% Standard Tech" is a lie, as I have shown. I don't think I have seen anyone use a phrase like "85% Standard Tech," except myself.

Back in 2004, when I spent 20 hours or so doing that comparison table, I thought Standard Scn was a good idea. As time goes by, I think less and less of it. But my consideration of the relative worth of adhering to Scn rules and procedures doesn't change the fact of its being done, or not, or to what extent. And if someone insists on getting Scn auditing as described in red-on-white (more or less), I agree they are more likely to get it outside the CofS than in.

Paul

 

[paradox]

I did check it out. It didn't kill me. In fact, I found it very helpful. It's not for everyone. Some people will benefit from it. Others will get taken by conmen. Some will benefit from being taken by conmen. It's hard to say.

My view is that most of the people I met in the FZ were very good people doing what they thought was right, and I found them invaluable resources on my journey out of that belief system.

YMMV.

Yes, it does appear that way. The experience will either assist awakening from the con [illusion] or reinforce it à la When Prophecy Fails.

"Experience is a hard teacher, because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards."


-- Vernon Saunders' Law

 

[Emma]

A lot of nonsensical hot air. Most of the FZ does standard tech or very close.

But how can that be when the NUMBER ONE POLICY in Scientology is KSW1 yet every FZer I've ever spoken to says they pick & choose the tech they apply and ignore the "unpleasant" tech. At the very least it's a violation of "Technical Degrades".

You can't be a Scientologist per L Ron Hubbard unless you are on board, in good standing, totally standard tech dude. Otherwise you are something else because your certs get cancelled and you don't get to call yourself a Scientologist anymore.

So for Hubbard worshippers, how does it work that you can defy him so?

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Hmmm...we're getting close to is it a dessert topping or is it a floorwax territory.

Both Terril and I know people in the FZ who create their own processes and are somewhat divergent from standard tech. Or sometimes very divergent. We also have the RO bridge which is pretty different after OTIII from the other one. Way more OT levels. Additionally, we both know lovely nice "standard tech" (fluffyese: "tech purists") in the FZ who claim to be sticklers and do deliver a nice model session but who are far less draconian than they are in CofS, and in this I include flouting of some of the nastier policies- written by one L Ron Hubbard.

So, yes, Emma, good question.

And Terril, you know I still love ya, right?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Don't be offended but I'm glad that opportunity never occured.

I've no problem with that. I find much of value in the subject of scientology. I have no expectation that others must also. I like to see it remain available for those who WISH to have access to it. Participation isn't mandatory nor should it necessarily be universal.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I'm not enamored of the term " standard tech" nor of the PL KSW1.

Cool. Ready to reconsider the "mission statement" of FZorg yet?

If this be squirreling make the most of it! - M.A.Baker

Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

But how can that be when the NUMBER ONE POLICY in Scientology is KSW1 yet every FZer I've ever spoken to says they pick & choose the tech they apply and ignore the "unpleasant" tech. At the very least it's a violation of "Technical Degrades".

You can't be a Scientologist per L Ron Hubbard unless you are on board, in good standing, totally standard tech dude. Otherwise you are something else because your certs get cancelled and you don't get to call yourself a Scientologist anymore.

So for Hubbard worshippers, how does it work that you can defy him so?

I'm not and never have been a Hubbard worshipper (nor do I know of any who regularly post on esmb), Emma, however did you read either my reply to you on the "my opinion ... esmb" thread (#279) ...

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=503739#post503739

... OR ...

... my response to Alanzo, #327 on the same thread?

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=504255#post504255


Mark A. Baker

 

[mate]

Hi Emma,

I think you will find that the FreeZone have embraced HCOBs and and related Tapes, while at the same time have rejected HCOPLs and other related orders and tapes for the most part. So that the FreeZone is free of CofS policy and this would include the KSW series and the constraints of The Bridge.

Just a thought.

David.

But how can that be when the NUMBER ONE POLICY in Scientology is KSW1 yet every FZer I've ever spoken to says they pick & choose the tech they apply and ignore the "unpleasant" tech. At the very least it's a violation of "Technical Degrades".

You can't be a Scientologist per L Ron Hubbard unless you are on board, in good standing, totally standard tech dude. Otherwise you are something else because your certs get cancelled and you don't get to call yourself a Scientologist anymore.

So for Hubbard worshippers, how does it work that you can defy him so?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

But how can that be when the NUMBER ONE POLICY in Scientology is KSW1 yet every FZer I've ever spoken to says they pick & choose the tech they apply and ignore the "unpleasant" tech. At the very least it's a violation of "Technical Degrades".You can't be a Scientologist per L Ron Hubbard unless you are on board, in good standing, totally standard tech dude. Otherwise you are something else because your certs get cancelled and you don't get to call yourself a Scientologist anymore.So for Hubbard worshippers, how does it work that you can defy him so?

ANSWER: HCOB FZ AUDITORS RIGHTS

We now listen in on a model session where a 100% standard FZ Auditor flys ruds before the major action.

FZ PC
And the CoS is evil, but the most horrible SP ever
is COB who is a criminal sociopathic liar.

FZ STANDARD AUDITOR
Do you have a missed withhold? That reads.

FZ PC
Yeah, you missed that I was withholding that I ARC break
easily on COB because he is Xenu reincarnate and
fucked up all beings in the universe worse than any
Psych ever did!

FZ STANDARD AUDITOR
I knowwwwwwww! He is such a disgusting asshole!
Okay, that completes the flying of ruds.
Let's get started now on your OT 29!​