ESMBer has academic paper published

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
Indeed Lotus ^^^ :cheers:

I did a little search for 'academic papers/criteria' and came upon this well written examination ~ http://library.newpaltz.edu/assistance/scholar.html ~ which explained a lot in simple terms, enjoy, it is a quick read but it gives the basics.

So, Terril, unless you are a student on a specific endeavour, in an institute of higher learning, it is merely an article afaic. I would not call this an academic anything, but, as you profess a deep understanding of the subject, you, yourself, could be cited in an article/ paper as a source of information. 'White paper', as mentioned above, is probably a closer definition, plain ol' 'article' is probably closer to the actual meat of the matter over-all.

I'd like to see the article anyhow, academic or not, its always interesting to see the latest spins on Hubbard's 'World-o'-Derp'.


:drama:



:cheers:
 

OutToe83

Patron with Honors
.



Outstanding! I have been searching for an authority on the Freezone and Indie arena to ask a question:

To date, has any FZ or Indie achieved the state of Clear?

I trust that this question will not cause you undue hardships that require vast amounts of time to research. Respectfully, I assume that you can report on this simply by memory, since your four decades of involvement in clearing technology certainly would have resulted in your having personally attained the state of Clear, accompanied by the Homo Novis powers of perfect memory.


SCIENTOLOGY: It is commonplace within Scientology academia to find scholarship, authorities & science. The words.


:drama: *waiting while crickets chirp*
 

Innominate Dude

No Longer Around
Why are these references unacceptable|?

There was nothing unacceptable about your citation style or referencing at all. Illegitimus noncarborundum: a necessary phrase around here.

I frequently browse academic literature outside my area of expertise, and the type I browse often uses precisely the style you are using, and then has all the necessary references either at the end or in the footer often (saves space). This style is both USED and often PREFERRED world over - NOT - repeat NOT - deficient at all. The style you were instructed to use is just fine, widely respected and very well thought out, but it is not universal. I wish my field could adopt something as readable, and still informative, as the style you used.

Also, there is nothing wrong with refering to your paper as an academic paper. Many different types of academic gatherings have "academic papers" read to the gathering despite the fact that the extensive process of peer review, etc., was not done. There really isn't time for it, and such in-person gatherings allow for clarifications in the flesh, so some of the more rigid procedures of peer-reviewed journal publication are happily discarded. They are still called "academic papers" conventionally in all the years I've been listening to humorless discourse while sipping coffee and wishing the catering were more generous.

Also, don't fret to much about peer review.; When I was doing my graduate degree work I managed to overhear this process on many occassions, perhaps because mere graduate students are non-entities who don't really count and thus people do shocking things in front of them and to them. Extensive human emotion and reaction readily arises in the peer doing the review, and they are often not shy about venting the emotional basis they often have for rejecting some proposed publication. This is part of why there is a pressure relief valve in the form of papers being presented at various denominated gatherings and these are still considered academic papers. It is an old saying that science sometimes advances one funeral at a time, and the "conference paper" or "symposium paper" (etc. - what is in a name really?) that are often collected and published is an important by-pass of entirely too human scholars attempting to impose destructive hegemony over thought in their field.

Also, CVs are extremely variable in academia. I recall one professor's CV as including not merely informal lectures given (to illustrate perhaps he was not so snooty as to be above addressing pre-college students or a general public audience) but also HIS MUSICAL PERFORMANCES (page after page, and no, he was a laboratory scientist rather than a music professor), right along with his publications in formal journals concerned with his field. A CV is meant to give some idea of the scope of topics you could or would be willing to address, and may include discussions where you read papers that were not peer-reviewed to a gathering, for instance. You would be doing nothing unacceptable in putting this paper and presentation of it on a CV for yourself.

I've liked your posts over the years. I'm back briefly (despite my disclaimer of being no longer around) while I convalesce for a while, and will enjoy reading more of what you've posted.


 

Anonycat

Crusader
There was nothing unacceptable about your citation style or referencing at all. Illegitimus noncarborundum: a necessary phrase around here.

I frequently browse academic literature outside my area of expertise, and the type I browse often uses precisely the style you are using, and then has all the necessary references either at the end or in the footer often (saves space). This style is both USED and often PREFERRED world over - NOT - repeat NOT - deficient at all. The style you were instructed to use is just fine, widely respected and very well thought out, but it is not universal. I wish my field could adopt something as readable, and still informative, as the style you used.

Also, there is nothing wrong with refering to your paper as an academic paper. Many different types of academic gatherings have "academic papers" read to the gathering despite the fact that the extensive process of peer review, etc., was not done. There really isn't time for it, and such in-person gatherings allow for clarifications in the flesh, so some of the more rigid procedures of peer-reviewed journal publication are happily discarded. They are still called "academic papers" conventionally in all the years I've been listening to humorless discourse while sipping coffee and wishing the catering were more generous.

Also, don't fret to much about peer review.; When I was doing my graduate degree work I managed to overhear this process on many occassions, perhaps because mere graduate students are non-entities who don't really count and thus people do shocking things in front of them and to them. Extensive human emotion and reaction readily arises in the peer doing the review, and they are often not shy about venting the emotional basis they often have for rejecting some proposed publication. This is part of why there is a pressure relief valve in the form of papers being presented at various denominated gatherings and these are still considered academic papers. It is an old saying that science sometimes advances one funeral at a time, and the "conference paper" or "symposium paper" (etc. - what is in a name really?) that are often collected and published is an important by-pass of entirely too human scholars attempting to impose destructive hegemony over thought in their field.

Also, CVs are extremely variable in academia. I recall one professor's CV as including not merely informal lectures given (to illustrate perhaps he was not so snooty as to be above addressing pre-college students or a general public audience) but also HIS MUSICAL PERFORMANCES (page after page, and no, he was a laboratory scientist rather than a music professor), right along with his publications in formal journals concerned with his field. A CV is meant to give some idea of the scope of topics you could or would be willing to address, and may include discussions where you read papers that were not peer-reviewed to a gathering, for instance. You would be doing nothing unacceptable in putting this paper and presentation of it on a CV for yourself.

I've liked your posts over the years. I'm back briefly (despite my disclaimer of being no longer around) while I convalesce for a while, and will enjoy reading more of what you've posted.



Style and legitimacy are very different things. You must know nothing of Academic papers.
 

RogerB

Crusader
You can upload a PDF (up to 1 megabyte) the same way you upload an image as an attachment. Below the posting window, under Additional Options, click the Manage Attachments button, and see if you can figure it out from there (because I don't want to write up complete instructions right now). :)

Also be aware that your total attachment space is limited. The space you have varies, depending on your post count member level.

I'm glad someone actually did something helpful and answered BB's "how do I" . . .

But having said that, I am surprised any individual allows themselves to be so incompetent as to not learn how to use a facility they have been posting on for, how many years? Well, since Jan. 2007 . . .

To get a pdf into a post is as simple as doing an attachment to an email . . . . On the top right there is a little paperclip!!!! See what it says.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
There was nothing unacceptable about your citation style or referencing at all. Illegitimus noncarborundum: a necessary phrase around here.

I frequently browse academic literature outside my area of expertise, and the type I browse often uses precisely the style you are using, and then has all the necessary references either at the end or in the footer often (saves space). This style is both USED and often PREFERRED world over - NOT - repeat NOT - deficient at all. The style you were instructed to use is just fine, widely respected and very well thought out, but it is not universal. I wish my field could adopt something as readable, and still informative, as the style you used.

Also, there is nothing wrong with refering to your paper as an academic paper. Many different types of academic gatherings have "academic papers" read to the gathering despite the fact that the extensive process of peer review, etc., was not done. There really isn't time for it, and such in-person gatherings allow for clarifications in the flesh, so some of the more rigid procedures of peer-reviewed journal publication are happily discarded. They are still called "academic papers" conventionally in all the years I've been listening to humorless discourse while sipping coffee and wishing the catering were more generous.

Also, don't fret to much about peer review.; When I was doing my graduate degree work I managed to overhear this process on many occassions, perhaps because mere graduate students are non-entities who don't really count and thus people do shocking things in front of them and to them. Extensive human emotion and reaction readily arises in the peer doing the review, and they are often not shy about venting the emotional basis they often have for rejecting some proposed publication. This is part of why there is a pressure relief valve in the form of papers being presented at various denominated gatherings and these are still considered academic papers. It is an old saying that science sometimes advances one funeral at a time, and the "conference paper" or "symposium paper" (etc. - what is in a name really?) that are often collected and published is an important by-pass of entirely too human scholars attempting to impose destructive hegemony over thought in their field.

Also, CVs are extremely variable in academia. I recall one professor's CV as including not merely informal lectures given (to illustrate perhaps he was not so snooty as to be above addressing pre-college students or a general public audience) but also HIS MUSICAL PERFORMANCES (page after page, and no, he was a laboratory scientist rather than a music professor), right along with his publications in formal journals concerned with his field. A CV is meant to give some idea of the scope of topics you could or would be willing to address, and may include discussions where you read papers that were not peer-reviewed to a gathering, for instance. You would be doing nothing unacceptable in putting this paper and presentation of it on a CV for yourself.

I've liked your posts over the years. I'm back briefly (despite my disclaimer of being no longer around) while I convalesce for a while, and will enjoy reading more of what you've posted.



Thank you for the supportive post! I shall post the essay/paper
in full. Either PDF, if I can figure out how or full text. you post even less than I which is a shame:).
 

Terril park

Sponsor
I'm glad someone actually did something helpful and answered BB's "how do I" . . .

But having said that, I am surprised any individual allows themselves to be so incompetent as to not learn how to use a facility they have been posting on for, how many years? Well, since Jan. 2007 . . .

To get a pdf into a post is as simple as doing an attachment to an email . . . . On the top right there is a little paperclip!!!! See what it says.

I've never tried to post a PDF here and I could find nothing about
doing so on a FAQ. Doing so on a mail I have done often and assumed
it would be the same procedure here but per Ethercat not so.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Paper part 1

THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY AND THE FREEZONE

Terril Park

Many have heard of the Church of Scientology (COS); fewer have heard of Freezone or
Independent Scientology. Freezoners or independents are people who still practice Scientology but
do not associate with the COS. In fact, they can't. If one does Scientology outside the Church, one is
automatically considered a "Suppressive Person" or SP. According to COS policy the suppressive
person is an enemy of Scientology and an anti-social personality. But Freezoners and independents
argue that “Scientology” can refer either to the subject itself or to a series of interconnected
corporations known as the Church of Scientology. For a variety of reasons that will be reviewed in
this essay, they prefer to practice scientology outside of the COS.
In a sense, the forerunners of the Freezone were the Scientology Franchises, later renamed
Missions. Franchises began in the early fifties when they were started up by people with lots of
auditor training and experience. These were the greatest flowering of Scientology and spurred its
greatest expansion. The Missions were very user-friendly and usually had very skilled counselling
staff. A stellar example was Martin Samuels who headed the Mission of Davis, a university town in
California, and who expanded it to 5 missions with a total of 500 staff. Martin started the Delphian
project in Oregon in 1973, which was to research alternative energy. He also started a school for the
children of those on the project. The school became very popular with other scientologists since it
used Scientology study methods. After 12 years of work he had 5 missions and 12 schools. In one
year he had 3000 people doing a Scientology communication course in his missions
(www.instinct.org.bluesky/bs7-2.htm).
In October 1982 there was an international Mission Holders Conference in San Francisco. During
the conference, the new management of COS led by David Miscavige, stamped its authority on the
Missions. All mission holders had to sign new contracts with COS. This gave COS control over the
missions, with the ability to enter mission properties at any time and confiscate money from them
for alleged infractions against COS (www.instinct.org.bluesky/bs7-2.htm).
A few weeks after the conference Martin Samuels lost his leadership role in all his Missions and
was declared a suppressive person. A friend who lives in Davis, and was a member of the Mission
in its heyday, says the mission there now only has one employee (personal communication, 2004).
Before the changes initiated at the conference it was possible for Mission staff to earn enough to get
mortgages and buy property. In comparison, at more or less the same time, I was on staff in the
London COS and I earned about £5 per week.
The 1982 Mission Holders Conference resulted in the largest schism in the history of Scientology.
Many thousands resisted Miscavige’s efforts to exert more control over the missions and left the
COS. Some mission holders took their missions into the Freezone.
After the attempts to impose strict regulations on the missions, Scientology field auditors, the
individuals who trained as auditors but who operated independently of Scientology churches were
the next to experience greater attempts at regulation . A new organization was formed by Miscavige
and the central leadership of the COS in December 1982, the International Hubbard Ecclesiastical
League of Pastors (or IHELP). Field auditors had to agree to be bound by decisions of IHELP.
According to information in Jon Atack’s A Piece of Blue Sky, this organization coerced and fined
field auditors (www.instinct.org.bluesky/bs7-2.htm). These actions against the missions and field
auditors were in large part what started the expansion of the Freezone.

My Involvement in Freezone Scientology

I have been one of the most active advocates of Freezone Scientology since 2000, usually
promoting it on Scientology Internet forums with “Success Stories” several times a week for more
than 15 years. With the success stories I also link to Freezone Yahoo forums, two of which I own.
For maybe 12 years, from around 2000 to 2012, I was averaging 20-25 new members to forums
and/or people wishing to be directly connected to an auditor per month.
In what seems to be a counter-intuitive action I had more success in getting people connected to the
Freezone on forums that were primarily critical of Scientology/COS. In fact there are no open
forums on the subject that are not primarily critical. For example I'd post on My-Space, which one
would expect to be neutral on the subject, and I'd be criticized as much there as I was on
“alt.religion scientology,” a notoriously hard-core critical forum. However quite a few who were
interested in Scientology would be on such forums.
The internet has made it quite easy for scientologists who no longer wanted to be connected to COS
to meet and connect with like-minded people, and to connect up with an auditor if they wish to get
auditing. Freezone or independent Facebook groups are proliferating. As of this writing, there are
few people joining Yahoo Freezone forums, and Facebook forums are now the popular place to go. I
serve as a moderator on one, “Free Scientology Chat,” and about one new person joins a day.
In the earlier days of the Freezone, in the 2000s, I knew of only two places where one could go to
train as an auditor in the US, and I knew of most Freezone activities. Now there are at least 14 that I
know of and it’s harder to keep track nowadays (see www.freeandable.com/business-listings/by-
category/65-auditors.html).


Defecting to the Freezone

In 2004 I travelled through the US with the aim of meeting Freezoners who I knew from
conversations over the internet but had never met; I also met many I did not know. One of these was
an old timer who worked with Hubbard and was a personal friend in the early fifties, Phil Spickler.
He has a website (http://community.freezone-tech.info/phil-spickler/) and has put up quite a few
videos of interviews with himself. He was either the first Mission holder or one of the first; his
mission was in Palo Alto, California. The founder of the Stanford University’s remote viewing
project was Hal Puthoff who came from Phil's Mission. Phil also audited the NFL quarterback John
Brodie, then the most highly paid athlete in America. Brodie had hurt his arm in a car crash, and for
an American football quarterback that was very bad and possibly career-destroying news. He
consulted at least six doctors with no good results. A friend urged him to consult with Phil and
although reluctant he eventually did. This is as good an example of the effectiveness of Dianetics
and Scientology as you'll get. Brodie’s book, Open Field, describes what he did in the auditing
which was so effective that Brodie then won an award for being the Most Valuable Player in the
National Football League. He gave Phil a Trans Am (an American muscle car) as a thank you
present.
In 1975 Phil on his own initiative communicated with the then IRS commissioner, a fellow Jew, and
commented that they both had backgrounds in a religion that suffered from suppression, and that he
would like to do something about the apparent suppression of his current religion Scientology. The
commissioner sent a special envoy to visit Phil and the envoy said it would not be difficult to get
religious status for COS again. The main problem was that most money went into a Hubbard
account, not a COS one. The envoy left Phil with all the paperwork needed to handle that and regain
religious recognition. So Phil sent it to top management. For his trouble he recieved a slap on the
wrist. Phil then became a Freezone auditor around 1991. This was a very bad move by Scientology
management because it squandered the good will Phil had developed with the IRS. The IRS was
later asking for back taxes of one billion dollars. This would have bankrupted COS."
Rathbun " Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior" p151.
So they instituted over 2000 lawsuits against the IRS and some of the individuals working there,
and carried on fighting the IRS until 1993 when the IRS reversed its earlier position for reasons still
not clear.

Ron’s Orgs in the Freezone

The Ron’s Orgs in Europe, Russia and former Russian states have been very active in spreading
Freezone Scientology. They were originated in 1984 by the former third in command after L. Ron
Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard, Bill Robertson. When he found that he could no longer contact
Hubbard, Robertson acted on instructions he claimed to have received from Hubbard himself. He
said that Hubbard had told him that if Robertson could not contact him for a prolonged period, he
was to start Scientology afresh. So Robertson went from the U. S. to Europe where he had spent
some time helping to build up Scientology and did just that. In 1984 he formed Ron's Orgs [Ron’s
Organisation and Network for Standard Technology] and coined the term Freezone. The Ron’s Orgs
flourished over the next decade.
Around 1995 when the Internet started expanding enormously, a group of Russians wrote to some
of the senior people in Ron’s Orgs and asked to meet with them. The meeting went extremely well
and they returned and delivered Scientology courses to around 50 Russian people. The Ron’s Orgs
have expanded enormously since and they now have somewhere between 30-50 organisations in
Russia or former Russian states, as well as some in other countries. There are some 2000 active
members of Ron’s Orgs (Hauri 2013). Ron’s Orgs have been particularly strong in auditor training.
They have between 50-100 class 4 auditors, who can deliver all the levels of the lower part of the
Bridge to Total Freedom, and around 25 “L's” auditors. The L's offer the most powerful Scientology
auditing available and require the highest level of technical training. At this time, there are probably
more L's auditors in Ron’s Orgs than the COS. In fact, one can observe some Ron’s Orgs auditor
training in a production by the UK’s channel 4, “The Beginners Guide to L. Ron Hubbard.” It is just
about the only TV programme to ever comment positively on Scientology (see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emKvMPGSc0s).

Recent Developments

There is another label given by the COS to those who practice Scientology outside the Church. One
is called a "squirrel," which is defined as someone who doesn't really understand Scientology and
therefore messes people up. A good recent example of this negative labelling is its application to
Marty Rathbun, former second in command of COS and leader of the Religious Technology Center
from 1987 to 2004, when he left the Church. Rathbun previously was entrusted with auditing all the
Church celebrities, such as Tom Cruise, John Travolta and others, and also the top executives of the
COS.
Around 2009 Rathbun started a blog which was particularly scathing about the head of the Church,
David Miscavige, claiming that he physically abused his juniors, destroyed most COS management
functions, and imprisoned most of the top executives of the Church, including Rathbun. He also
started to give auditing outside of the established COS structures to those who wanted it. Shortly
afterwards COS sent a team of so called “squirrel busters” to his residence. They wore cameras in
their hats and harassed Rathbun and his wife Monique for 199 consecutive days (Childs and Tobin
2013b). Eventually Marty and Monique moved to a secluded new property, but there again they
found spy cameras trained on their house and a strange neighbour whose job seemed to be that of a
spy. That neighbour, three separate Church organizations, and other individuals including David
Miscavige have been named in a lawsuit by Monique alleging harassment (Childs 2013).
The Rathbun case shows how far the COS is willing to go in order squelch dissent and inhibit the
practices of Freezoners and independents. In Marty Rathbun's latest book Memoirs of a Scientology
Warrior, he estimates that from 1981-86 the COS spent $100,000,000 in litigation, at least some of
it against Freezoners (Rathbun 2013: page 313). In response, the COS claims that it is acting within
its rights. For example, in the ongoing lawsuit brought against COS by Monique Rathbun, Marty's
wife, one of COS's lawyers said
COS had the right to hire private eyes to determine whether Marty was delivering services in
violation of copyright. The Rathbuns forfeited their privacy by conducting the business of
delivering Scientology services in their home (Childs 2014).
That statement also shows how the COS moves back and forth between describing itself as a
business (which, in this case, is defending its copyrighted materials) and a religion.
Rathbun has also endeavoured to expose the ways in which the COS has waged a battle against
Freezone Scientologists. He has published a document from Office of Special Affairs, a part of COS
that handles investigations and dirty tricks, public relations, finance and legal matters, that describes
a long and detailed plan to destroy Ron's Orgs. It reads in part: “Program Purpose: To terminatedly
handle the Freezone in Russia and CIS as a source of black PR on Scientology and as a travesty of
standard tech that ruins peoples spiritual future” (Rathbun 2010).
Like many other Freezoners and independents, I believe that this type of activity runs counter to the
assertion in the creed of the COS that assures that “all men have inalienable rights to their own
religious practices and their performance” (See Church of Scientology 1978: 188). That sentiment is
underscored in Hubbard’s pamphlet, The Way to Happiness, which, in its eighteenth precept,
encourages its readers to “Respect the religious beliefs of others” (Hubbard 2015).

The Church of Scientology Versus the Freezone

In 1992 the COS wrote its enemies list, amounting to nearly 2500 names and groups. In December
2013 another near 2500 names of enemies had been sneaked out by someone who was on staff for a
while and hid a camera in an umbrella handle (see
http://xenu.net/archive/enemy_names/enemy_list.html). On the first half of the enemies list 280
groups named all seemed from their names to be Scientology Freezone groups. Most of these
groups no longer exist.
David Mayo provides a vivid example of how COS deals with dissidents. Once the Senior Case
Supervisor International, the senior Scientology Tech consultant, he apparently co-authored with
Hubbard some of the confidential upper levels that can be delivered in the Scientology “Bridge.”
The “Bridge” is the series of counselling actions from beginning steps to higher steps up to the
upper levels. These upper levels resulted from David's efforts to audit Hubbard when it was thought
he may be dying in late 1978 (see Touretzky 2015).
David Mayo was declared a suppressive person in 1983. After that, he met up with other former
associates and they decided to start their own splinter group delivering Scientology. They called it
“Advanced Ability Centre,” and by February 1983 some 30 associated organisations around the
world formed.
The aggressive actions of the COS to preserve the purity of COS doctrine and practice frequently
led to expulsions of former members, and many of them become independent or Freezone
practitioners. For example, in October 2013 eighteen of the most influential Scientologists in South
Africa were declared suppressive persons. They are highly trained and have served Scientology for
many years or even decades and it’s looking like they are going to take the rest of the Scientologists
in South Africa out of COS and into the Freezone (see https://backincomm.wordpress.com/).
Many similar events can be quickly summarized. In 2012 an entire Israeli Mission, Dror, left COS
en masse (Lewis 2014). One of its co-founders, Tami Lemberger, had twice won Auditor of the year
awards by COS. But she had received a copy of Debbie Cook’s revelatory 2011 email (see Cook
2011) which described in detail how asking for donations for matters was against Hubbard’s
policies. Her Husband forwarded it to COS management asking for comment but was treated as
disloyal and subsequently decided to cut all ties with COS. Similarly, in Los Angeles in 2010 a
Taiwanese scientologist has started her own organisation and taken all or most of the Taiwanese out
of LA Scientology Orgs to study there. She also has an Org in Taiwan which has 100 staff. It must
have previously been a COS mission since it has been in existence for 12 years (see Flasch 2010).
Developments like those listed above lend credence to the comments of Jillian Schlesinger, who left
the Sea Org, the paramilitary wing of the COS composed of its most dedicated members, in
February 2014. In an interview she claimed that “I’ve been to orgs all over California, and they’re
empty. There are maybe five people there. And some of the fancy course rooms at the Ideal Orgs?
They’re being used for storage” (Ortega 2014a).
The perspectives offered by Freezoners and independents raise substantial questions about the
COS’s estimates of its own membership. Different sources from the Church suggest that the
membership is anything between 10 and 15 million (see Rinder 2014). But
there are several official government statistics that appear to be more accurate. The 2011 UK census
estimated that there were fewer than 2500 Scientologists in England and Wales
(see https://scicrit.wordpress.com/2015/...the-uk-what-does-the-2011-censusdata-tell-us/).
Similarly, the 2011 Australian census identified fewer than 2200 Scientologists there
(see Cannane 2012). Further, the ARIS survey in the US estimated that there were 25,000
scientologists in the US in 2008. Very roughly scientologists in the US are about 50% of the world
total. Jefferson Hawkins, who headed the Scientology Central Marketing Unit, had access to all lists
of members and other information; he estimates that at most COS has 40,000 members (Ortega
2011).
Other efforts by the COS to inflate its impact on the world have been questioned as well. In the
2014 New Year’s event at Flag in Clearwater, COS’s largest organisation and the only place where
some of the upper levels of Scientology training are delivered, Miscavige showed videos purporting
to be Scientologists being interviewed on two Irish Radio programs, Ocean FM and BBC radio
Foyle, in Northern Ireland. As it turns out, they were both faked. When someone phoned up Ocean
FM and asked about this program the station said it was not their studio in the video and the person
doing the interview is not known to them. On the 19th Jan a spokeswomen for the BBC said about
the video, “The BBC is an independent, impartial organisation. Any misuse of its brand is
considered a serious matter and will be investigated” (see Martin 2014). In the video the front page
of the Donegal News is shown with a story about COS’s effort to campaign against drugs. Mr.
Columba Gill, the editor of the Donegal News, described the front page depicted on the video as
“bogus” (see Hickey 2014). There were also claims that the efforts of COS had cut drug-related
crime by 85% in Dublin. But the Irish government statistics show a drop of 7%. Although getting
actual statistics of COS activity is difficult, Mike Rinder, former International Spokesperson for the
COS, gets sent information from all over from insiders, and ex-scientologists and Freezoners who
sometimes observe activity in COS and all reports are of greatly diminished activity. Clearly those
inside the COS and those outside it have very different perceptions of the health of the Church.

Part 2 to follow.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Seems simple enough to attach a pdf to a posting...
 

Attachments

  • THE_MESSAGE_OF_THE_DIVINE_ILIAD-Vol.1_1.pdf
    972.8 KB · Views: 36

Terril park

Sponsor
Paper part 2

The Church of Scientology, the Freezone, and the Future of Scientology

While the COS confidently expects millions and millions more to join in the future (Church of
Scientology 2015), many of those who have left the COS see an organization in substantial decline.
They adduce a number of reasons, including monetary demands, the failure of the COS to make
good on its promises of self-betterment, the failure of programs like Narconon, and the dwindling
number of qualified auditors.
Many critics have claimed that the COS is mainly interested in raising money. They point to
statements like this one from a write up by a COS Executive on raising funds for an ideal org: “So
your “Shills” [the technical term for someone who has agreed to donate in advance but appears to
be doing it spontaneously] should be made aware they have a responsibility to use their donation to
get others to donate as much as possible” (Childs and Tobin 2013a) Former members have
expressed disillusionment with the pressures to give to the Church.
Others have criticized the Church for not being able to deliver on the extraordinary personal
advances it promises. For example, beyond even the powerful Operating Thetan levels comes
"Cleared Theta Clear," a state which Hubbard describes this way:
A thetan who is completely rehabilitated and can do everything a thetan should do, such as move
MEST [matter, energy, space, and time] and control others from a distance, or create his own
universe; a person who is able to create his own universe, or living in the MEST universe is able to
create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle MEST universe objects without mechanical
means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the mest universe to keep himself and his
friends interested in existence (Hubbard 1978: 114).
The state described above, however, has not been achieved in the COS. Much as I have loved some
of the gains in Scientology, even including some OT levels, which I did in the Freezone, I have not
achieved this. I know of no one else who has. It is the case that COS often oversells the benefits it
provides. The highest level of auditing that COS delivers is Operating Thetan level 8. In theory the
COS should then deliver something which could achieve the above. However, after one has reached
the highest part of the bridge available one is put instead . . . back to the beginning through the
Purification Rundown and objective processing. The purification rundown is a detox program and
objective processing is simple processes to locate one in present time. One is also told that no one
has ever done these levels properly before. This is in effect a Scientology version of blasphemy. It
implies that the founder of Scientology, L Ron Hubbard, couldn't do them and couldn't organise
their delivery either.
Narconon is another area of COS that is rapidly unravelling via many lawsuits and criminal
investigations into its practices. Narconon claims to get addicts off drugs for good, using basic
Scientology techniques. The “purification rundown,” for example, involves running, and sweating
in a sauna for up to 5 hours a day with increasing doses of vitamins, especially B3 and Niacin at
doses up to 5000 mg per day. But, according to the US National Institutes of Health, niacin at high
levels can cause liver damage (see United States National Library of Medicine 2015). This applies
much more so for Narconon patients who as a result of heavy drug use can start with impaired
livers. Narconon has falsely claimed that over 70 percent of its graduates remain drug-free.
Narconon's actual success rates are below those of more established programs (see Touretzky 2015).
In June 2014 an Oklahoma State Grand Jury was empanelled to look into criminal insurance fraud
allegations against Scientology’s flagship drug rehab facility, Narconon Arrowhead. Three patients
died in a nine-month period in 2011 and 2012, resulting in county and state investigations of the
facility (Ortega 2014c).
Las Vegas attorney Ryan Hamilton has also filed 29 federal lawsuits against Narconon,
Scientology’s drug rehab network as of August 2015. He observed that “Most troublesome is the
fact that there is no medical supervision of any kind for the patients.” All but one of the suits were
filed in federal court, and each of them names as defendants a local facility as well as Narconon
International and Scientology’s umbrella group ABLE (Association for Better Living and
Education). Narconon International and ABLE have already settled in 7 of these lawsuits though the
local Narconons have not, as of August 2015.
Narconon was started in 1966 in an Arizona prison by William Benitez, who had been an addict for
many years. He was inspired by a scientology book, Fundamentals of Thought. A well-known
scientology mission holder, and later Freezoner, Alan Walter went into Folsom prison to teach the
practices and principles then used by Narconon. Although Narconon services were originally free,
now participants in Narconon pay around $30,000. That’s without the double billing that is
sometimes given to the client’s insurance companies (Ortega 2014c).
A new lawsuit was filed in May 2014 by the National Association of Forensic Counsellors (NAFC)
which named 82 defendants — again including Scientology leader David Miscavige. Although
Narconon CEO Gary Smith was stripped of his NAFC certification when he failed to report three
deaths at the facility, it has been alleged that he continued to advertise this certification on line
(Ortega 2014b).
There are other serious problems for the future of COS. It seems that the COS doesn’t want to train
auditors. That alone could lead to its demise. Instead it wishes to push for more straight donations.
Mike Rinder, former international spokesperson for COS, posted on his blog (Rinder 2014) that on
April 25, 2014 there was not one student on the St. Hill Special Briefing Course in Los Angeles
(see http://training.scientology.org/wis1_9.htm). This is the largest and most comprehensive
auditing course in the COS. Mike's blog has many old time scientologists making comments, and
quite a few commented on being on the SHSBC when there were hundreds of people on this course
in the seventies and eighties.
The scene in Los Angeles is mirrored at St. Hill, UK, where the Briefing Course originated.
However, as of February 2015 not only had there been no briefing course completions, there have
been no auditor training completions of any sort (Rinder 2015). Not only is the COS apparently
doing minimal training, it is demanding that auditors be re-trained from the beginning on its new
training program.
It appears, then, that COS is losing auditors and the Freezone is gaining auditors. Most auditors in
the Freezone, apart from Ron’s Orgs, left COS or were kicked out. For example, in June 2014,
Ronit and Yossi Charny set themselves up to deliver auditing in the Freezone. Previously they were
delivering upper levels at Flag headquarters in Clearwater.
The current and future state of COS and its management structure is discussed by Chris Shelton in
both video and written accounts on his website. He provides a simple and lucid overview of the
very complex structure of COS. Read this and you will know more about the organisation than
almost all within COS. Chris was 25 years on staff, and left in December 2012 after seventeen years
in the Sea Org and 8 years as the executive in charge of auditing and training for the west US. It’s
worth noting that prior to the Mission Holders conference in 1982, the Missions were somewhat
isolated from management interference, for example the Sea Org could only enter missions if
invited, and this contributed to their expansion.
In 1996, Miscavige began to re-position himself as the actual source of Scientology with the release
of what he called the Golden Age of Tech. This was basically a total re-write of the entire subject of
Scientology training. Miscavige’s revisions have made it impossible for Scientology auditors ever
to graduate. Thus began Scientology’s steep decline as a service-oriented organization, with more
and more attention going onto straight fundraising. The transformations of the COS under
Miscavige’s leadership have led more people to practice Scientology independently or in the
Freezone.
Mike Rinder has written as to why the COS is concentrating its efforts on purchasing new buildings
that it doesn't need. Tony Ortega and Mike have both posted several examples of the high pressure
selling to fund raise for these buildings.
In 2015 so far, there has been a lot of bad news for COS. The most important
came with the showing of Academy award winning documentarian Alex Gibney’s
“Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief,” which premiered at the Sundance
Film Festival and has shown at many art house cinemas worldwide. It premiered on HBO on March
29, 2015. HBO has 35 million viewers in the US and outlets in 151 countries with a total of 114
million subscribers worldwide. In the US it was the second most watched HBO documentary of the
last 10 years (Soriano 2015). The documentary is based on Laurence Wright’s book of a similar
name and Wright came on board as a producer.
The COS has taken out full page advertisements in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times and
has put up websites attacking the film makers and their interviewees (see
http://www.freedommag.org/going-clear/). Alex Gibney has said that he is grateful for the publicity
but wished "they'd put in showtimes" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoingClear(film)

Ronald Miscavige the father of David Miscavige has had PI's following him for 18 months at a cost
of $10,000 per week. At one point one PI thought he was having a heart attack and phoned to ask
instructions. David Miscavige rang back and said words to the effect that “If he dies, he dies.”
Miscavige senior has decided to publish a book about his son and Scientology with David
Miscavige's comment above as the title. The PI s have made taped police confessions and had been
found with many guns and an illegal silencer (Ortega 2015b).
Tony Ortega, journalist and former editor of “The Village Voice” has been covering Scientology
since around 1995. He has just published The Unbreakable Miss Lovely in May 2015, the story of
COS's campaigns against Paulette Cooper, which included faking evidence of her making bomb
threats. This attempt failed because the FBI found the documents of “Operation Freakout,” the plan
to get Paulette jailed or institutionalised , when they raided COS in 1977. Paulette's “crime” was
writing The Scandal of Scientology, published in 1971. Tony and Paulette have been on a book tour
since publication. Tony's book is already going into its second printing.
In the summer of 2015 Tyndale University College and Seminary in Toronto hosted a 5 day
conference organised by Professor James Beverly and John Atack. It featured a who's who of critics
and some academics discussing Scientology. Lectures will be available after they are edited. By all
accounts it was a great success (Ortega 2015a).
It is my opinion that the tide is also turning for academics in the field of new religious movements.
Previously they had been in general uncritical about the COS and Scientology. Now James Beverly
has just put on this conference. I had the pleasure of taking Dr. David Barrett and Professor Beverly
to an “Anonymous” protest at COS in London. I've exchanged mails and conversed with Professor
James Lewis of the University of Tromsø and introduced him and one of his students to Ron's Org
in Moscow. He and at least one of his students are writing papers about the Freezone (see Lewis
2013). This would be considered enemy action by COS. Also, I was invited to talk about The
Freezone at Inform's 25th anniversary conference—in the eyes of COS, more enemy action.

Conclusion

In this essay, I have given some details of how COS is shrinking and why. Debbie Cook’s email
appears to have had a strong impact on COS (Cook 2011). For example, Freedom Medal winner
Wendy Honnor was inspired to leave COS by it (Rathbun 2012). The exodus of many South
Africans from COS was influenced by Cook, as was the breakaway Israeli Mission Dror. Her email
has most likely been seen by a large number of COS members because she asked that it be
forwarded to others. In response, Miscavige initiated a lawsuit against Cook and her husband, but it
backfired spectacularly, especially because Cook’s testimony was filmed by ABC television in the
U. S. In her testimony, for example, she asserted that she “was put in a trash can, cold water poured
over me, slapped, things like that. And it would—one time it went on for 12 hours” (Rathbun 2014).
In addition to detailing what she went through, Cook also detailed indignities and violence visited
upon others by Miscavige. The day after Cook testified, COS withdrew its lawsuit and a settlement
was reached.
Taken together, the evidence from Cook, Rinder, Rathbun, and many others points to a dramatic
contraction of the COS. Course rooms which once used to have hundreds now have only a few. The
COS seems no longer to bother with training auditors. Instead, the public is relentlessly pursued by
a multitude of high pressure salespersons. In addition, almost every day media criticism of the COS
can be found somewhere in the world. Far from prospering, the Church of Scientology appears to be
in significant decline
 

RogerB

Crusader
Seems simple enough to attach a pdf to a posting...

P&B is correct . . . . a pdf is only a file like any file is a file . . . the difference being, it is in a format that makes it MORE EASILY transferred, attached and used on the wonders of the internet.

BB, what does pdf mean????
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Just over 2 years ago I was asked to give a talk at Infom's 25th
anniversy conference. They also asked if they could publish it'.
Its just been published by them in "Cult Wars in historical
perspective" I leave the conclusion here and a PDF. There have
been a couple of minor edits not included here.

bb

Conclusion

[..]

Church of Scientology and The Freezone .pdf

Hi Terril, I found a clip from the book preview at Amazon which Dulloldfart linked below. which discusses a bit about your article vs the opposing view by Eric Roux ( current President, COS France). I will try to attach, below

Keep in mind, seems that you do not own copyright to your article so you need to get permission to put it on the internet, even as a pdf. So look over this image of the book's copyright and see what you can and cant do, and where to seek assistance.

BTW, the title you show above, of your article is not accurate. The published title is " From The Church of Scientology To The Freezone"


Book Copyright notice
Cult Wars Copyright 1.jpg


Here is the clip I referred to, as a photo and a pdf. Page 5 of book

Cult Wars page 5 reduced .jpg

View attachment Cult Wars page 5.pdf



It's in this book (Part 2, item #13):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cult-Wars-Historical-Perspective-Religions/dp/1472458125

The image is from a contents page shown in Google Books.

View attachment 13147

Paul

Thanks, Paul, That was very helpful

Terril, I am looking forward to reading what both you and Roux have to say. I am glad you contributed to this because the history of Scientology and it's wars includes the indies and freezone... We can't re-write history for those who dislike the FZ... just provide the information that explains what it is, how it evolved and the overall conflicts CoS has with former members of all flavors. Here is page 5 of the book, where the author discusses some of the book..


Thanks.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Keep in mind, seems that you do not own copyright to your article so you need to get permission to put it on the internet, even as a pdf. So look over this image of the book's copyright and see what you can and cant do, and where to seek assistance.

It looks OK to me. The copyright notice says Copyright 2017 . . . individual chapters, the contributors, so as I read that he's the contributor of his chapter and is covered.

Paul
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Hi Terril, I found a clip from the book preview at Amazon which Dulloldfart linked below. which discusses a bit about your article vs the opposing view by Eric Roux ( current President, COS France). I will try to attach, below

Keep in mind, seems that you do not own copyright to your article so you need to get permission to put it on the internet, even as a pdf. So look over this image of the book's copyright and see what you can and cant do, and where to seek assistance.

BTW, the title you show above, of your article is not accurate. The published title is " From The Church of Scientology To The Freezone"


Book Copyright notice
View attachment 13152


Here is the clip I referred to, as a photo and a pdf. Page 5 of book

View attachment 13153

View attachment 13155





Thanks, Paul, That was very helpful

Terril, I am looking forward to reading what both you and Roux have to say. I am glad you contributed to this because the history of Scientology and it's wars includes the indies and freezone... We can't re-write history for those who dislike the FZ... just provide the information that explains what it is, how it evolved and the overall conflicts CoS has with former members of all flavors. Here is page 5 of the book, where the author discusses some of the book..


Thanks.

Thanks Mary.

The change of title is one of the edits made after I
submitted the article. I have no problem with it. I've
just posted the article in 2 parts to this thread so you
can read it. Eric Roux's article I can't legally post.
Unfortunately the book costs £95. I believe a kindle
version is available for £35.

Re copyright I'm recognized as the author. Looking
at the details of the applicable act I find quite confusing.

Eric Roux is a CO$ member and formerly OSA I believe.
His article is primarily PR.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yikes 95 pounds for a 175 pg book?

It would be interesting to see what the COS France had to spin on the subject. Probably the standard drivel of X new churches constituting X thousand sq ft of idle space etc.
 

Innominate Dude

No Longer Around
Re: Paper part 1

THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY AND THE FREEZONE

Terril Park

Many have heard of the Church of Scientology (COS); fewer have heard of Freezone or
Independent Scientology. . . . .

Part 2 to follow.

Thanks for posting this.

You live in a jurisdiction which hews closely to the Berne treaty ideals of copyright protection and should expect little probable threat for a noncommercial unpaid presentation of a copy of this work in this forum. The Berne treaty is strongly concerned with balancing economic realities of publication with the free flow of discourse about ideas, and European/British law is probably supportive of your producing a copy of the essay here regardless of copyright technical points. Also, as someone has pointed out, you apparently retained copyright to the work, as often happens in compilation publications of conference papers, so as to enable the actual flow of ideas outside the rigid formal journal records. ("Conference paper" is probably the best description of the essay, and it may be referred to as a variety of academic paper.) If conference attendees didn't frequently produce their own conference papers in other fora the point of the conference would be frustrated, as conferences are meant to deal with emerging issues and contended issues that require ability to converse about ideas outside the rigid academic journaling process.

I'm particularly pleased that you deal so extensively with the much broader social environment (than org staff-parishoner interactions) that has always existed around Scientology in all its ramifications, but typically eludes sociological documentation. In the US the extensive social network often arising more through the efforts of mission-affiliated people, rather than Class IV org and similar affiliation hubs, was vast and extremely important. Knowing who Bill Franks, Alan Walters, Martin Samuels, Mr. Gerbode, etc etc, are is often just as important as knowing of the role and influence of people like Debbie Cook or Mr. Rathburn, strongly affiliated with the more "core" organs of the COS. THe 10% of the Scientology world that is like the iceberg tip above the water tends to draw immense attention. The sociologically rich 90% of the Scientology world, that in the US instance typically revolved around mission-affiliated people rather than the very visible org structure, is difficult to read about for most scholars.

I've often regretted that discussions with serious minded people about my origins in being raised in the Scientology world, celebrity kid-glove edition, leaves me struggling to explain that my sense of identification with and then alienation from the formal COS structure hardly begins to be the sole core of my formative life experiences. True, it was important, because when you are a child of a celebrity in Scientology you might experience either the kid-glove edition your parents know, but if you are a "problem child" you can also experience the fangs fully displayed and claws red with your blood version of Scientology, as proof to the celebrity that "Scientoloogy will handle that". Handle the hell out of it, actually. But that was merely one small slice of my formative life. I learned about dietary fads and "alternative" medical paradigms, the workings of the US congress and its political tendencies, emerging technological thrusts both pseudo-scientific and scientific, rational and daft topics of all sorts, etc etc, through conversation with adult Scientologists without relying on either formal COS publications or school lessons or mainstream public literature. I had an entire life in which the COS was merely an important sun in the sky at certain times, but hardly the entire set of constellations that exists when not directly under that sun. I have so much trouble explaining to people with academic leanings the reality of a much fuller and richer life I had as a child growing up in Scientology circles once they've become fixated upon the COS vs. the world vs. dissidents vs. common decency narrative, which has so much available material on line. It's like being a person raised in Africa and all people seem to want to talk to you about is what safaris you went on as a child, as if that is the core life experience of every African.

I think your conference participation did an important task in leading scholars towards the much fuller view of the Scientology world that lies submerged under the water, eluding documentation and study. All these thngs occur by small steps at a time, but this step can be called an important one for this purpose.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Re: Paper part 1

Thanks for posting this.

You live in a jurisdiction which hews closely to the Berne treaty ideals of copyright protection and should expect little probable threat for a noncommercial unpaid presentation of a copy of this work in this forum. The Berne treaty is strongly concerned with balancing economic realities of publication with the free flow of discourse about ideas, and European/British law is probably supportive of your producing a copy of the essay here regardless of copyright technical points. Also, as someone has pointed out, you apparently retained copyright to the work, as often happens in compilation publications of conference papers, so as to enable the actual flow of ideas outside the rigid formal journal records. ("Conference paper" is probably the best description of the essay, and it may be referred to as a variety of academic paper.) If conference attendees didn't frequently produce their own conference papers in other fora the point of the conference would be frustrated, as conferences are meant to deal with emerging issues and contended issues that require ability to converse about ideas outside the rigid academic journaling process.

I'm particularly pleased that you deal so extensively with the much broader social environment (than org staff-parishoner interactions) that has always existed around Scientology in all its ramifications, but typically eludes sociological documentation. In the US the extensive social network often arising more through the efforts of mission-affiliated people, rather than Class IV org and similar affiliation hubs, was vast and extremely important. Knowing who Bill Franks, Alan Walters, Martin Samuels, Mr. Gerbode, etc etc, are is often just as important as knowing of the role and influence of people like Debbie Cook or Mr. Rathburn, strongly affiliated with the more "core" organs of the COS. THe 10% of the Scientology world that is like the iceberg tip above the water tends to draw immense attention. The sociologically rich 90% of the Scientology world, that in the US instance typically revolved around mission-affiliated people rather than the very visible org structure, is difficult to read about for most scholars.

I've often regretted that discussions with serious minded people about my origins in being raised in the Scientology world, celebrity kid-glove edition, leaves me struggling to explain that my sense of identification with and then alienation from the formal COS structure hardly begins to be the sole core of my formative life experiences. True, it was important, because when you are a child of a celebrity in Scientology you might experience either the kid-glove edition your parents know, but if you are a "problem child" you can also experience the fangs fully displayed and claws red with your blood version of Scientology, as proof to the celebrity that "Scientoloogy will handle that". Handle the hell out of it, actually. But that was merely one small slice of my formative life. I learned about dietary fads and "alternative" medical paradigms, the workings of the US congress and its political tendencies, emerging technological thrusts both pseudo-scientific and scientific, rational and daft topics of all sorts, etc etc, through conversation with adult Scientologists without relying on either formal COS publications or school lessons or mainstream public literature. I had an entire life in which the COS was merely an important sun in the sky at certain times, but hardly the entire set of constellations that exists when not directly under that sun. I have so much trouble explaining to people with academic leanings the reality of a much fuller and richer life I had as a child growing up in Scientology circles once they've become fixated upon the COS vs. the world vs. dissidents vs. common decency narrative, which has so much available material on line. It's like being a person raised in Africa and all people seem to want to talk to you about is what safaris you went on as a child, as if that is the core life experience of every African.

I think your conference participation did an important task in leading scholars towards the much fuller view of the Scientology world that lies submerged under the water, eluding documentation and study. All these thngs occur by small steps at a time, but this step can be called an important one for this purpose.

Thanks again for support!

You said:-

"Scientology will handle that". Handle the hell out of it, actually. But that was merely one small slice of my formative life. "

Scn may well be able to handle much. But IMO and experience
mainly in the hands of those skilled in its practice. Fortunately
I have known many of these. A newbie auditor with a skilled C/S
may work miracles.

There are often desperate attempts to handle matters that fail
miserably. With regard to outreach and the application of policy
this has failed completely.

You said:-

" In the US the extensive social network often arising more through the efforts of mission-affiliated people, rather than Class IV org and similar affiliation hubs, was vast and extremely important. Knowing who Bill Franks, Alan Walters, Martin Samuels, Mr. Gerbode, etc etc, are is often just as important as knowing of the role and influence of people like Debbie Cook or Mr. Rathburn, ..."

So true.

You are very welcome to contact me on [email protected]
or skype terril.park.
 

Gib

Crusader
Yikes 95 pounds for a 175 pg book?

It would be interesting to see what the COS France had to spin on the subject. Probably the standard drivel of X new churches constituting X thousand sq ft of idle space etc.

I would gather that in one of those churches, a Clear emerges. :confused2::roflmao:

Maybe like John McMaster, the first Clear, but yet Hubbard said he cleared 270 people in Dianetics book. :confused2: :roflmao:

OK, I got a question, who is the first on this earth real Clear?
 
Top