Golden Quotes from ESMB

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

Here is one that's great to re-read from time to time.

This post removes the final barrier to avoiding OT.



...

From the Scientology 'Tech Dictionary':

"Operating Thetan, a thetan exterior who can have but doesn't have to have a body in order to control or operate thought, life, matter, energy, space and time... an individual who can operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one... a being at cause over matter, energy, space and time, form and life. Operating comes from 'able to operate without dependency on things'... ability to operate functionally against or with MEST and other life forms... this state of being is attained by drills and familiarity after the state of Clear has been obtained."

In 1965, Clear was presented as removing the final barrier to OT; in 1967, OT 3 was presented as removing the final barrier to OT; in the early 1970s, the Ls were presented as removing the final barrier to OT; in the late 1970s, NOTs was presented as removing the final barrier to OT.

Up to the late 1970s, OT 8 was the top and final OT level, and was described as "Total Freedom and Total Power."

After Hubbard had established his cult, and some people were beginning to wonder, "Where are the OTs?," the Grade Chart was changed, with old "OT 8" (which was never released, and never actually existed) disappearing and being replaced with "New OT 8." "New OT 8" was then not the final or top OT level but the first OT level: Bait and Switch accomplished. Well adjusted Scientologists nodded approvingly.

From the 'History [This is a cold blooded and factual account of your last 60 trillion years] of Man', by L. Ron Hubbard, 1952, originally titled 'What to Audit':

"...may I make this simple request? Don't get spectacular until a few of the boys make it. You don't want to be lonesome and you'll need reinforcements if a war gets declared on thetans here. The preclear may think he can do it alone if he gets cleared of a body he'll need more help and company than he thinks. So, again, as a final note on this chapter, let's not go upsetting governments and putting on a show to 'prove' anything to homo sapiens for a while; it's a horrible temptation to knock off hats at fifty yards and read books a couple of countries away and get into the rotogravure section and the Hearst Weeklies but you'll just make it tough on somebody else who is trying to get across this bridge. Let sleeping sapiens snore in the bulk for yet awhile. Then meet some place and decide what to do about him and his two penny wars, his insane and his prisons. Tell people who want to invalidate all this, 'Your criticism is very just. It's only fantasy.' Cure up the lame and halt and the incompetent with whatever display of technique you need. Protect theta clearing until there are a few."

From old timer John Sanborn:

"In a Phoenix Congress... he talked about spooky whole track stuff. He had a floodlight on the floor in front of this little platform shining up, because that makes you look ghouly. And his face looked really weird and outer space and really crazy... and he talked weird... I think he was trying to drive people a little bit wacko so they'd fall into his hand a little bit."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpHhJKeTYxI

Hubbard and Scientology have been selling superhuman abilities, including godlike "cause over MEST," for a long time.

The usual sequence was and is:

1) Promise super human abilities.

2) Take money, gain confidence, assert influence over the eager future Scientology superman&god.

3) Then take more money, and exert more influence.

4) Finally, many years later, explain that what you originally said, or what Ron originally said, actually meant something else.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

The Lovely La La Lou Lou said this :

"Why a Sea Org ice queen bitch from hell will fail.
Slowly over the years I have been off staff I am coming to a conclusion about the Sea Org valence, case gain and ethics.

I was a young shy being, naive, gentle, talented, eager to learn when I was hit over the head by a reg who got me to do the comm course. I did in fact learn to confront people better, I had been very shy, I did have wins.

I was about to start my career by going to study art, I was told that art wouldn't clear the planet and that there were only five years left etc etc. My goal, my purpose was just a Q and A with my bank I had to join staff. I did. Bit by bit my vibrant personality disappeared and an invented persona emerged. I was trying desperately to be Ron. I could drag people out of bed to answer telexes I could have no sympathy with downstats, I would be ruthless and completely unlike myself.

Now this invented being (the real identity buried deep in the miserable depths of my soul), this invented being is not 'me'. So I fall several times on my face and hit ethics conditions. When I have to find out who I really am I have to deny myself and say that I am the ice queen bitch from hell. Each time I get the condition it buries the real me deeper and the false me becomes more real. The same with doubt, it's not about my dynamics, my aims, my ability it's about the bitch queen from hell's dynamics.

However if you are not being yourself you cannot look at your past, it's someone else's. Any type of counselling will fail. Any auditing gets to be about the bitch queen from hell's track and gets pulled out of books films and History of Man. Finding out who you really are refers to the bitch queen from hell, you just don't count. You are nothing.

I do think that there is some inspired ideas hidden in the ethics conditions, but that somehow it all got scrambled up with Hubbard's insecurities and demand for revenge. Correctly applied the doubt formula would speed people's progress off staff and into what they really want to do. If a situation is dangerous then changing things could be a very good idea, as in running away from the coast as the big wave comes in from the sea, though sitting on the beach to write your O/Ws might be counter-survival.

Forcing or coercing people to work anywhere is a bad idea. Negating their goals and purposes is a very bad idea. Trapping them further with duress, sleep deprivation, humiliation, inadequate diet, guards, barbed wire and condition formulas that force 'cogs' are bad ideas too. Then all this is over laid with quotes from the flounder that sound like the sound bites from Orwell's 1984.

Under these conditions surely no counselling can work, simply because the ice queen bitch from hell is not a real human being. Invented humans cannot get understanding, they can carry on hitting their heads against brick walls for decades. They can carry on in the hole, divorce the only person the real being ever loved because Miscarriage said to, get an abortion, live without love, tell the MAA that their spouse spoke about leaving.

Likewise you cannot talk to your friends who are still in about the truth because the ice queen bitch from hell beingness stops the communication.

The SO will fail, simply because the staff are fundamentally fucked. Everywhere in the modern world there is neglect, the need to be recognized, which is not satisfied.

Art is a way of recognizing oneself, which is why it will always be modern. (Louise Bourgeois) "

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Vumba Said :

" If ESMB were to fold.......
Dear Friends... if ESMB were to fold (and I truly hope it doesn't and that someone who has the resources were able to pick it up and run with it) then I should love to have this quote from Bertrand Russell heard/read:-

Bertrand Russell in 1959.
Question posed to Bertrand Russell in 1959 by the Host…
“If this film were to be looked at by our descendants like a Dead Sea Scroll in a thousand years’ time, what would you think it is worth telling that generation about the life you have lived and the lessons you have learned from it?.”

“I should like to say two things, one intellectual and one moral.

The intellectual thing I should want to say to them is this:-

When you are studying any matter, or considering any Philosophy ask yourself only… what are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted,either by what you wish to believe or by what you think could have beneficient social effects if it were believed, but look only and solely at what are the facts.

That is the intellectual thing that I should wish to say.

The moral thing I should wish to say to them is very simple. I should say:-

Love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world which is getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other; we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don’t like. We can only live together in that way. And if we are to live together and not die together, we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet".

Recently viewed on a “Talk at the BBC” programme.

AMEN"

To which I add, SELAH!

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Regarding the Origins of ESMB, Veda said:

"Re: ESMB is not done.

There was an idea, way back when, that the old (entirely "critical") newsgroup, a.r.s. (alt.religion.scientology) could be joined with the (mostly "squirrel") "tech" oriented a.c.t. (alt.clearing.technology), and this combination of seemingly irreconcilable opposites would allow for a place where a complete description of Scientology would be possible. That would mean that the "good" of Scientology (mainly used as deceptive lead-in disguise) could be described and discussed, as well as that which is lurking behind the "good."

This would allow for a complete description of the multi-layered goodness-disguised mind-trap of Scientology, and that's something Scientology most definitely does not want.

ESMB finally made that possible.

Probably, aside from people inside the "Church" of Scientology, and their bewildered families, the people who need ESMB the most are the Independent Scientologists over at MartyWorld, and the Scientology Zoners in the Freezone. One might say it's their uh... "next step."

Usually, Scientologists can grasp the notion that "Black Scientology" might be used on "Suppressive Persons," but not the idea that Scientology's founder used "Black Scientology" on his own loyal followers. This is difficult to explain to Scientologists, since Scientology (Hubbard's teachings and "applied philosophy") is regarded as a "gift" from Hubbard for their benefit. Yet Scientology, as crafted by Hubbard, is a devious mix of "Black" and "White" Scientology, and this mixture is what makes Scientology a trap.

Currently, about as far as most "Independent" and "Freezone" Scientologists can venture is to assert that corporate Scientology's current leader, David Miscavige, uses "Black Scientology." Beyond that, usually things become foggy for them.

In his confidential writings, Hubbard taught that Scientology's enemies should be subjected to "enemy tactics," and to the various mechanisms of the mind (and "reactive mind"), and Hubbard, in writings and lectures, would sometimes describe these and, on a few occasions (usually at lectures), even warn the wide eyed and eager Scientologists that some evil force (not him of course, but the communists, Nazis, psychiatrists, the "12 bankers," etc.) could use Scientology to enslave - such is "the power the tech," etc. FZ and Indy Scientologists are fond of quoting these warnings. This, while remaining subject to many of the manipulative ideas and methods woven into Scientology by its founder.

Here are a few examples. There are many.

L. Ron Hubbard described himself as "Mankind's Greatest Friend," etc., so his writings and comments about "aberrative mechanisms" and "enemy tactics" never came across as a warning about himself. If anything, it made others more inclined to trust him.

For example, in Dianetics, what's "aberrative"? Something that equates to "survival." The "held down 7s" are "aberrative" because they're identified with the person's survival. "Survival," as a "mechanism" becomes "aberrative."

Even in 1950, Dianetics was presented as being a "race with the atomic bomb." The message was plain enough: Dianetics = Survival. No Dianetics = Doom.

And this continued into Scientology. One of many examples: In 1956, Hubbard wrote, "With Man now equipped with weapons sufficient to destroy all Mankind and Earth... The primary race on Earth is... the one being run between Scientology and the atomic bomb."

How many Scientologists read Hubbard's descriptions of Dianetics and Scientology as essential for Mankind's "Survival!" - and their own "Survival" - and thought, "Oh, Ron's using the 'Survival mechanism' to manipulate me" ?

Another example from 1950 Dianetics is the "ally computation." Someone comes out of the blue and helps another person, helps the other person in some way or other. The "help" could be indifferently offered, or insincerely offered, but if the needy person regards it as aiding in his "Survival!" (or well being, or the alleviation of pain or the attainment of pleasure or relief), then (so the theory goes) the "ally" mechanism is in place and in effect. For example, an uncle, who may not be a particularly nice fellow, gets his little nephew a glass of water when that nephew is sick in bed and thirsty. The uncle (in the mind of the little nephew) becomes an "ally," and the uncle become identified with "Survival!"

Now, who would have thought that "Mankind's Greatest Friend," on whom the "Survival!" of Mankind, and the "Survival!" of each person (Scientologists, through Ron's "Bridge") depended, would use the "ally computation" and the "Survival mechanism" in order to deceive, manipulate, and exploit? Nah, that could never happen.

However, it did happen, and not only years later, but sometimes the same day, or previous to Hubbard mentioning a deceptive, manipulative or destructive mechanism or tactic.

But it was disguised, and so wasn't recognized. Hubbard's warnings about the race between Dianetics or/and Scientology and the atomic bomb were regarded by Scientologists as warnings by their, and Mankind's, #1 "ally," L. Ron Hubbard. Who amongst Scientologists suspected? Yet, the warning noted above - from 1956 - was less than a year after Hubbard had published, and distributed, his fake "Russian Psychopolitics textbook" http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg (which of course denounced Dianetics), a "textbook" that, amongst the haughty "Russian Commie"-sounding rhetoric, and references to psychiatrists practicing lurid sex with their (unconscious) patients, "Pain-Drug-Hypnosis," shock treatment, lobotomies, etc., was a compendium of enemy ("Russian Communist") ideas and practices for "asserting and maintaining dominion over thoughts and loyalties."

From Hubbard's "Russian Textbook":

"The failure of Psychopolitics might well bring about the atomic bombing of the Motherland. The psychopolitical operative must succeed for his success means world peace... The end thoroughly justifies the means."

Even "Survival!" - used to manipulate - was mentioned in the fake "Russian Textbook":

"It is pointed out in many early Russian writings that this is a survival mechanism. It [the "Survival!" mechanism] has already been well and thoroughly used in the survival of Communism."

Hubbard's 1955 "Russian Textbook" was loaded with manipulative and exploitative ideas and practices, many of which were being used on Scientologists themselves - used on them by their "Greatest Friend" and ally, L. Ron Hubbard - ideas and practices which were, ultimately, from the 1960s onward, formally incorporated, by Hubbard, into Scientology doctrine and practice.

Yet, who suspected? Yet, it was right there. And because it was right there it was unthinkable.

And the last thing that Scientology wants is to be thoroughly and accurately described, and for Scientologists to start thinking about the unthinkable.

Another way of seeing ESMB is as an extension of the pre-Internet book, 'Messiah or Madman?'

L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?, 2nd edition:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0942...654802-4263319

Messiah or Madman?

The book L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman? has been published in three English language editions, each further revised and updated
(1987, 1992, and 1996.) There is also a hardbound Russian language edition that became available in 2005.

Unlike most other books on Scientology, 'Messiah or Madman?' examines both the "positives" and "negatives" of the subject.

An excerpt from the book flap for the 464 page 1996 edition:

"I have high hopes of smashing my name
into history so violently that it will take a
legendary form even if all the books are
destroyed. That goal is the real goal as far as
I am concerned. Things which stand too
consistently in my way make me nervous.
It's a pretty big job. In a hundred years
Roosevelt will have been forgotten - which
gives some idea of the magnitude of my
attempt. And all this boils and froths inside
my head...
"Psychiatrists, reaching the high of the
dusty desk, tell us that Alexander, Genghis
Khan and Napoleon were madmen. I know
they're maligning some very intelligent
gentlemen."

L. Ron Hubbard wrote these words in a letter to
his first wife in 1938.

In 1950 he wrote the bestseller 'Dianetics, the
Modern Science of Mental Health. This inspired a
layman oriented mental health movement which,
ultimately, developed into Scientology, the most
profitable of the money-making new religions.

Hubbard's early Dianetic and Scientology writings
borrow freely from Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and
the founder of General Semantics, Alfred Korzybski.

And P.T. Barnum appears to have been an inspiration.

Hubbard also took much from the writings of Aleister
Crowley - self-proclaimed "Beast 666." This is a source
of embarrassment for the Scientology Church, which
is determined to achieve broad public acceptance.

In the 1960s Hubbard incorporated Brainwashing
methodologies into the subject. He established the
"Fair Game Policy" which states that an "enemy" of
Scientology "may be deprived of property or injured
by any means by any Scientologist, without
discipline of that Scientologist. May be tricked,
sued, lied to or destroyed."

He also became the Commodore of his own private
navy, and began to refer to himself as "Source."

L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman? exposes
as never before the dark side of Scientology, yet
contains an in-depth examination of the potential
positives of the subject and their actual origins.

So, whether it's regarded as the fruition of the idea of merging the old a.r.s. & the old a.c.t. newsgroups (defying, if not laws of physics, the laws of human nature ), or as a living Internet extension of an old pre-Internet book, or thought of some other way, ESMB is definitely unique."

Ex Scientologist Net, the Home Page: http://exscn.net

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Posted by BunnySkull:

"No matter who or what was at play I do think ESMB suddenly got a lot more flack from the cult in some insidious ways due to the Australian Senate inquiry.

I think for a long time the cult just monitored, kept their lackies lurking and sent the occasional troll to ESMB, but the senate inquiry scared the shit out of them and they could easily see the core group that was the driving force behind it was at ESMB, brought together by ESMB and gaining steam and more witnesses/evidence via ESMB. It's crazy to think they wouldn't at least try various ways to reek havoc on the joint to disrupt this very successful effort.

What methods and whom did they use to do it? I sure as hell don't know. It seems the main people who were victims of it aren't even sure. All I know is eventually their were major rifts between people who were formerly friends and now flame wars ongoing from people who posted here for years. It's not all coincidence. I know some of it is natural. Groups of strong minded, passionate people are bound to have conflicts and infighting, esp when the stakes are high and egos are involved - but the fact they got so nasty, were never resolved and keep festering leads me to believe it wasn't all just human nature and other things were at play to make sure the shit stayed stirred and flames were fanned. I think if there was no outside interference any naturally occurring personality conflicts and arguments would have been resolved or at least a truce reached long ago. Not saying everyone would be BFF again but there would be peace and no desire to keep this nastiness ongoing. Normal people get tired of constant bickering, attacks and fighting after the initial flare up.

Having witnesses similar groups (passionate political causes) not CoS related, where strong minded people get into conflicts and disagreements, people also quickly tire of fighting with people they generally agree with on the big picture points. The wounds tend to heal and people move on quickly when there is so much common ground otherwise. Agree to disagree on the minor or personal matters and move on - even if they aren't ever as close as they once were. That hasn't happened here and I think 3rd party interference is why.

I think the goal was to wear Emma down. The cult learned something like the arrest couldn't force her hand, and in fact a strong direct hit of any kind makes Emma dig her heels in and fight harder. So what other method could work? Slowly wearing her down with constant small, irritating behaviors and esp by hurtful words and behaviors.

I don't think Emma is the only victim or target in this either. There's been a lot of collateral damage in the ensuing bullshit. I think a lot of innocent people have been trying to do what they think is right and sometimes that's meant playing right into the cults plans. As we all know, the cult loves to take advantage of people's good nature or desire to help/do the right thing (It's how they manage to manipulate most people into joining the cult and SO.) so they use that desire to further their goals of harassment and irritation any way they can, and it makes it all look very innocent and even harder to discern.

I don't think there will ever be any easy answers to the extent of any cult involvement in this whole mess and how much of it was just natural human behavior - mainly because I think the cults strategy is just to throw as much shit against the wall as possible to see what sticks. They are probably as surprised as we are that some small action managed to spark a chain of events that lead to a split between friends, and probably just as dumbfounded when some long range plan had zero effect.

The problem is it just doesn't take much to play on people's egos and paranoia. OSA is not some fearsome CIA like organ, they are mostly pathetic little unthinking bots.You don't have to be some spy master or even all that intelligent to cause dissent in groups and keep nasty feuds going. It takes relatively little effort or work on the trolls part - the victims, and unknowing parties, of their machinations do 98% of the work for them.

They only need to create a small spark, we are the gasoline.

The best way to fight it is to be level headed and keep things as open, honest, above board and public as is feasible. People being in the dark, the unknown, cliques, paranoia, information only being shared with some, secrets, gossip, etc... -- these are the things trolls and OSA count on to make their work fester and spread. They are like mold or bacteria basically, only mold and bacteria are more useful.

....all this is just my humble opinion and I won't have anything more to say on the subject unless some new, factual information comes to light."

 

[Gottabrain]

From Smilla http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ology-philosophy-in-25-words-or-less&p=684906

The Scientology philosophy, in 25 words or less

The prime Scientology datums are that donkeys can be made to believe they are tigers, that boring and ordinary people can be made to believe that they are fascinating and special, and that fat and unhealthy old men who drink far too much, can be convinced that they are persons of substance and credibility.

 

[Gottabrain]

Degraded Being wrote:

It's a way to reinforce ideas of self, by making self and what one experiences, two very distinct things. One thing, the self, is "handling" the other thing(s): problem, situation, "charge" etc. This all reinforces the basic concept of a "being" or "thetan" who can control the universe. So it reinforces the idea that one is separate from the universe in which one finds oneself. And so things like "the bridge" can go on being sold indefinetely, because the separation idea will itself keep generating endless problems and things to be "handled".

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Emma Wrote:

"Re: Guess I'm not 'done'...
Hi Clami. Great to see you .

I probably should clarify my "I'm done" post.

Just because I'm done doesn't mean I believe everyone should be done, or "get over it" or "move on". It's just right for me at this time.

What I have witnessed a number of times, is that people can actually do themselves harm by not moving on when they could & should. Nobody, especially me, is saying that there is a time limit in which to recover, or that any length of time is "too long". I have seen people come on to ESMB and their whole life changes. They read the truth that was hidden from them. They make new friends. They unravel the mindfuck. They start to understand what effects Scientology has had on their lives, their finances, their families etc & they get upset, angry, resentful etc. This is all perfectly natural. Over time these things sort out for a lot of people and they can & do move on. They can & do begin their lives over.

Some people can't or don't want to move on. There are various reasons for this. Some have family members trapped inside. Some want refunds. Some want more & more understanding of how this happened to them. Others have never been in Scientology but know evil when they see it and want to stay and fight the beast until it is dead. All valid reasons to not be "done". But only if it is your choice.

I've seen too many people become addicted to ESMB and other forums at the expense of real life. Internet drama replaces real life drama. Reading about the latest celebrity in Scientology or arguing with an unknown person becomes more important than watching a movie with your husband or helping with the kid's homework. I've seen this over & over. It's happened to me too.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the internet is wonderful when it is used properly. Having an enemy to fight is great fun. Watching the cult crumble is very entertaining. Protesting is awesome fun. Catching up with old friends & making new ones is fantastic. These things are all great as long as you are still in control. I worry that people leave one all consuming environment, just to replace it with another, and never take the time to actually live.

I'm not saying that people should give up the fight, or forget what they went through, pretend it didn't happen etc. Or that they shouldn't go to the police/FBI/media etc with their stories. They absolutely should if they want to or need to. They should post as often as they like for as long as they like on message boards and get everything off their chests. But one day, and nobody knows when, Scientology will mean less to you and it will be time to take back your life. You don't "owe" anybody here anything. You can chose to stay or go, or come back again if you want to. But make sure it's YOU who is making the choice, and not that you just keep doing this because its now become a habit.

I hope this doesn't sound preachy. I don't mean it to be & it certainly doesn't mean I think people should leave ESMB or anywhere else they post & forget Scientology exists. This is 100% NOT what I'm saying. What I am saying is....Don't forget to live!"

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Mick wrote:

" Re: Guess I'm not 'done'...
I think there are different personal editions of "done".

There is the part where one is "done" being in a cult and decides to move out or on. For some that's when they walk out - for others it after the physical departure and when they realize that it is far better to have left it all behind them and they ain't going back.

Then there is being "done" with going over what went wrong, "how could I have been so stupid?" the 'injustices' - separate long digression here - it is often amazing to me how very upset a lot of exes are over the perceived 'injustices' they received. I don't mean injustices in the broader public sense of the word but in the narrower scientology meaning. I am always taken aback when someone who I know is out still complains about how they were picked on, attacked or punished "even though their stats were up" or how they were a great auditor, ED or whatever. It seems to take far longer for that mindset to disappear - if it ever does. I still read emails from exes that sound like a stat report.

And there are other "dones" - like the one when you realize that it was all a crock of shit. Hubbard really was lying and really had no fucking clue about anything other than securing a luxurious lifestyle for himself.

And some of these take a very long time - we worked very hard and for very long hours pursuing the desire to be "upstat" and successful and spent a lot of time correcting ourselves and ripping our own hearts out over our perceived fuck ups and out ethics etc etc. Getting "done" with that takes time, a lot of it.

And we spent a lot of time pursuing the study of it all - trying to achieve what was never really there and, again tearing ourselves apart in the insane belief that it was all our own fault, our own misunderstandings our own out ethics, when, in reality there was nothing there to begin with. That also takes a lot of time to get over.

But then there are parts that i don't think ever really get 'done" with. The people we liked and met and had fun with. They are part of our past in scientology as well so there will, for many, always be a part that will never be 'done" and, to be honest I don't want it to be. I still talk with people I went to school with as well, never going to be "done" with that.

And finally there is one other aspect to this - if you were in scientology for a long time and got to know a lot of people, were on staff and off staff, in the SO, studied a lot of courses, did quite some auditing. There is never going to be a subject in your life that you are going to know as well as you know this one. So its a bit hard to ignore when you see BS form people who don;t know it as well as you - and you just have to set them straight... LOL

So there are parts (IMHO) that get done and left and parts that don't. The sensible thing is to enjoy what is happening here and the conversations and if you don't enjoy it - maybe move on."

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Gadfly wrote:

"Re: Guess I'm not 'done'...

Originally Posted by Free to shine
Two great posts there - thanks Emma and Mick.

Yeah, me too! Two GREAT posts!

What is evident in both of these posts is the "distance" in both time and space between and with the subject and personal experiences of Scientology. One isn't sitting there with Scientology pushing right up in your face (mentally & emotionally). One has the luxury of having put some SPACE/DISTANCE between oneself and all of Scientology.

When one is involved in Scientology, one is "in" - and one cannot see things any other way usually. The view is small, tight, restricted and based solely on Hubbard's paradigm of often nutty notions.

But, once one is "out", and especially when some time has passed, along with the accumulation of OTHER non-Scientology experiences, one can then take a more expansive view of things.

When in Scientology, for the most part, Scientology is EVERYTHING. Hubbard designed it that way - to get you TOTALLY INVOLVED (to the exclusion of all else). The subject materials and the operation of the organization foist that attitude on all members ("never allow a half-minded approach about Scientology", "live or die in the attempt", "no dilettantes allowed", all-or-none, "shoulder-to-shoulder", etc.). One is fixated on an extreme slanted view of all-that-is (i.e. Scientology), to the exclusion of MANY other valid and useful opinions, ideas and viewpoints.

When out, especially for awhile, one can realign those often hard-to-understand past Scientology experiences with a much LARGER body of information. But also, one CAN and DOES eventually move on to getting involved in OTHER things with the same degree of intensity, passion, care and concern that one might have previously invested in Scientology.

There are billions of things to be interested in. None are right are wrong - except for you.

I doubt that I will ever be "done" forever with Scientology as a topic of interest to discuss, simply because first, I spent my early, young idealistic years immersed in it, and second, because I have a large amount of experiences and observations gained from taking a careful unbiased look at the whole thing from many angles.

I remember a few years back where I would spend 6 straight hours reading and posting on ESMB (earlier on FactNet or BeliefNet), almost obsessed with the subject. I would occasionally feel that I was getting a bit too involved with it all (just as I had been in Scientology). But, for me, it served as an OUTLET to vent similar experiences with others. Then when most of the emotional upset was gone, I moved forward a bit to where I was interested in simply observing and noting what I fathomed about the detailed trap of Hubbard's. It became almost "academic" - a subject of study.

To now, where I have active interest in so many other things, that the subject of Scientology generally exists, if at all, as a minor blip on the screen of my mental/emotional space. I think so little about it that if I didn't have posts to read and repsond to here on ESMB, I probably wouldn't think about it at all.

I find that some people have a hard time moving on because they invested SO MUCH into Scientology - in terms of time, money and energy, but also and especially, because of the investment of SELF in terms of hope, caring, a desire to help, working closely with others of a similar mindset, dedication, and passion. The thing to realize is that you can invest those things in ANY of MANY available causes, purposes, goals, and even hobbies and/or FUN! "

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...

Read this great post carefully.

There are some real gems in it!

This guy considered you to be a broken straw and came up with countless corrections, repairs and crammings to "fix" you...all that stuff is the Scientology holocaust because at the end of all that you find out you were fair gamed all along when you thought you were in good standing!

How is that? Well, in a 1967 policy titled Penalties for Lower Conditions, Hubbard wrote that opponents who are "fair game" may be "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

But that is exactly what the holocaust of Scientology does to its members in good standing! It deprives them of property...tricks them...lies to them...destroys them...you get the picture.

If you DON'T get the picture...well, here it is...and it IS stupid!!

Fabian...you broken straws, you...

 

[SweetnessandLight]

First a quote from Leon:

"Originally Posted by Leon ~
I find TROM to be very illuminating in this regard. What Carmelo posted aligns exactly with what is described there, except only that Carmelo's unknown author is a lot more verbose and hard to access."

To which Carmelo replied:

"It's a word doc that I found on an old old old hard drive (probably early 1990s). for all I know the author is me. I think I try to save authors signatures on purloined writings. There wasn't a reference. I don't think this is Ted, Alan, John Mace, John McMaster, Jack Horner. I can't think who else would have written it, that I would save it with no attribution.

It led me to reconsider the discussion I had with Trouble the other day.

see (starting here)

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthrea...l=1#post694133

Synthetic valence is another word for "FAKE."

I have to say, I wasn't a dilettante Scientologist. I was a fake Scientologist. I personally never bought the full package. It (Scientology) was better in many regards than my own observations and abilities, but it asked for compromises in my perceptions and integrity that I only grudgingly made, and only in not rocking the boat. I held onto my versions of truth. I always saw myself as an outsider, not a real Scientologist. I held critical opinions of LRH and the tech and ethics stuff from day one.

Prior to Scientology a friend and I sat most days of the week for years, just looking at one another, without speaking. We got huge off that. We returned daily to a oneness with each other.

(It is nearly 2 AM, I wish I wouldn't have these dumb cognitions in the middle of the night)

TR0 was always confronting for me, never oneness. Always individuated. I knew it to be completely inferior to what my friend(s) and I did before Scientology.

When my friend, pictured above, decided to join the Sea Org, I offered to pay for her auditing and training if only she wouldn't join. It was quite important to me that she didn't join. She did anyway, and it was OK, she left several years later. We're still close friends and buddies.

When I was 15, I hit the truth **for myself** that love was the most important thing.

I never accepted survival as the basic principle of existence. It just wasn't true. Still isn't. It belongs on a scale, but so do death and taxes. BFD

The first time I saw / read goldenrod, I was appalled. I never got over my complete disagreement with that. I was a child of Stranger in a Strange Land. "Thou art god," was my mantra, not, "you are an SP and I'm OK."

I loved and continue to love auditing, but not all the auditing I saw was beneficial. OT 3 was, and remains to this day harmful at best.

Then there were the retaliatory actions taken on people when an auditor found something from a PC that bugged them. I had a girl friend, who got sent to ethics after she criticized an auditor's daughter. It was totally malicious.

This picture is my wife with a granddaughter.

When I had been "in" Scientology for about two years. I wasn't Clear yet. There was a girl about 5 or 6 (like the girl above), sparkly and nice, living with friends, because her parents were divorced. She used to sit on my knee, and I read to her. Then her dad took her away to the Apollo. She became a Commodore's Messenger. One night at 2 AM, she fell asleep outside Ron's room. he found her, and had her put in the chain lockers for several days. There is now and never was any way I could reconcile that action. The anger it triggers in me as I type this hasn't dissipated in 40 years.

So I got terrific gains, of a permanent nature from Scientology, but the best I could do was remain aloof, and be a fake. It is not good to go through life faking it.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Originally Posted by Cowboy ~

"First and foremost, Scientology was a marketing effort.

I remember once discussing what the next "released" level should deal with. Hubbard said go out and do a survey as to what people's wants were, what was the ruin, most pressing on their minds? Whatever that was is what the next level's result would be. And just tell them, he explained, through his marketing genius, if they pc didn't achieve that result, advise the staff to tell them that the next level would achieve that result.

I left when I realized that even Hubbard himself was a far cry from any of the results promised through clearing and OT. It took me years to separate the promises from the reality. I saw him in his daily activities, through his own ups and downs, illnesses, losses, frustrations, rages. I twisted my mind trying to make the facts fit into the promises. It didn't work.

NED was developed because Dianetics didn't work. NOTS was developed because NED didn't work.

None of it worked. Not one bit. Not on him. Not on others. Sure, it made some people feel good for a while. But did any of the avowed results ever come to fruition? Of course not."

Editorial comment by Sweetness: Scientology is still primarily a marketing effort. That's how the Con works! Selling you a piece of your own personal "blue sky".

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Gadfly replied to Cowboy's above post:

"This is such a great post!

I read the PR Series a few times and it was obvious to me that there was NEVER any concern for "truth". Like you say, Hubbard would find out WHAT PEOPLE WANTED - just as is done with a listing question (discover what the PC's item is) - and then he would TELL THEM that Scientology could GIVE THEM THAT.

The Ruin-Finding Drill is THAT in a nutshell.

The reg sits the prospect down, and with two-way communication, finds what is really bothering or "ruining" the person. Everybody has something, especially when they are younger, so a good reg can find it. Then the reg really smashes your face into this ruin, and asks you, "what would happen if THAT got worse"? Their aim is to get you wallowing in the hopelessness of this ruin or troubling area.

Then the reg looks at you, and with well-practiced Tone 40 and feigned affinity says, "Scientology can handle THAT"!

Of course, the registrar has no idea whether Scientology can actually handle that (and probably it can't), BUT the reg learns the drill and the patter, and MANIPULATES PEOPLE into accepting and believing that Scientology will address and handle THAT.

It is ALL PR. It is about finding out what a person wants and desires. It aims at discovering what any person needs. And then, TELLING THEM WITH TOTAL CERTAINTY THAT Scientology can handle that! Of course, that is a lie, but some people fall for the mocked-up "certainty".

That is why surveys (in the PR & Marketing Series) were so key to Hubbard & Scientology.

It is all deceit and trickery.

I was put on a reg post for awhile. I learned all of this crap, but I could never do it comfortably. I felt like I was deceiving and tricking people. I got yelled at, and so forth, and eventually was taken off the post. My stats sucked!

I wanted to appeal to people's understanding, but boy would I get blasted when I said that. I was shown a few references from a tape where Hubbard says that people are "dramatizing circuits", that they have "no rights", and that they needed to be controlled and 8C'ed onto the srevice they need, because in their sorry banky low-toned state they were unable to make a sane responsible decision about anything.



Manipulation Tech 101:

1. Find out what a person (or many people) REALLY needs and wants (Non-Existence Formula)

2. Convince them that YOU can provide it for them (even if you really can't).

3. Get them BELIEVING in the promise that you can give them what they want.

4. Hook them with their own HOPE that you hold the key to their dreams and salvation.

Like I quote below from Hoffer, "They must know how to kindle and fan an extravagent hope". "

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Regarding "The Way To Happiness"

Originally Posted by Thought Provoking:

"One of the best tools that LRH wrote was quite simplistic and was applicable in many of the religions you mentioned above...the Way to Happiness. I know many found it hokey but it really was a great booklet. Unfortunately it was very misapplied in the church.
I think that it was never MEANT to be "applied in the Church". It was PR pablum - that is all. It was designed by Hubbard to help further the illusion that Scientology was/is the "good guys"."

To which Gadfly responded:

"Hubbard was VERY specific in his instructions on how to use PR Tech.

First, find what the people like, identify that, and then associate Scientology with those things.

Second, find out what people don't like, link (associate) enemies with THAT, and associate Scientology as being against such things.

It is ALL PR. It is all a matter of manipulating viewpoints.

With TWTH it was the first one above. The aim was to release something that had been surveyed from here 'til Sunday and back, where the surveys showed exactly what the general public LIKED and ADMIRED. Then Hubbard spit those list items back out at the general public in the form of TWTH. Hubbard finds things that many people can agree with. It is impossible NOT to agree with such things.

THEN, having gotten people to agree with the trite innocuous stuff, the aim is to then IDENTIFY that good stuff with Scientology & Hubbard. It is manipulation by creating associations in the minds of people.

It is the same with the Aims Of Scientology, where the claim is, the statement is, that the aim of Scientology is to "create a world without war, crime and insanity".

First, Scientology doesn't possess any knowledge, data, or "tech" that when applied could realize those goals.

Second, these aims are also more smoke and mirrors. These aims are something they can wave up in the sky like a flag, and say "hey look at this", and cause diversion and distraction from what they are REALLY doing. It is ALL TALK. They can't and don't do ANYTHING to reach those aims. It is all pretense. It is all a big mock-up; it is just another ILLUSION that people get tricked into looking at and misassociating with the general subject & practices of Scientology & Hubbard.

In a similar way, that is the only use that TWTH was ever meant to have - to be a tool with which "positive things" could be associated and identied with Scientology & Hubbard.

It was just more "bait" - to help lure & ensnare unsuspecting folks into the larger scam.

Also, it confuses people. It is difficult for people to look at and read TWTH, and then imagine or make sense of the idea that the same group of people who published THAT, and who claim that they are all for the ideas in TWTH, then go out and cheat, lie, manipulate scenarios, attack innocent people, exaggerate with PR, Hard Sell, crush reg, bully people, and so forth.

TWTH acts as a distraction to the real aims and purposes of Scientology - to make money, and then, to make more money."

 

[Gadfly]

For you S & L:

Is that a bumble bee (tee) in the rose?

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Hurray!!! I get to be included in the fun!

BEE TEE is right!

My comment: DARN! Rose blight beetle!!! biggrin

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...


Virtually every part of these two short videos are comprised of GOLDEN QUOTES about Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard and the thinly veiled fraud & terrorism that tries to pass itself off as the world's most ethical people/religion.

Thanks so much Gerry and Caroline. It is well worth anyone's time to listen, if real clarity is valued.

Gerry talked with me about what's wrong with Marty Rathbun on the SP doctrine:

[video=youtube;KeeWZPdZ-U8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeeWZPdZ-U8[/video]

Gerry also discussed the SP doctrine and the Indies' application of it at the Dublin Conference:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2X0-XvJclo[/video]

 

[SweetnessandLight]

TAJ said in answer to this by renegade:

Originally Posted by renegade~
"Only now do I realize that when I was in scn, I was given a hell of a lot of Out-Lists and Wrong whys about myself or my behavior. Even though eval and inval is frowned upon and supposedly not ok in scn, it is still done and the excuse is "I'm not auditing you right now." Such bull shit.

There seems to be truth about giving wrong reasons to someone will create a lot of anger, misery and REAL destruction in a person's life. I used to feel like I was going crazy!

I especially dislike the fact that I was told that I need to go past track to fix something that was easily handled by simple looking at how I was treated as a child.

If you had trouble with this, how did you handle it after you got out?"

TAJ wrote:

"I had the same problem. I had enough out-lists and wrong whys to kill a duck.

I finally got over what Scientology calls by-passed charge and all that other crap.

I realized, first of all, that out-lists, wrong whys, etc etc, only exist only in the context of Scientology.

So whenever I found my self bugged by these apparent demons I realized that I must still be thinking to some degree with a Scientology Mindset.

My first advice would be to stop using any Scientogy terms or even thinking in Scientology terms.

Don't just use another word for an ARCX--abandon the concept of ARC in the first place.

What's glue for you is glue for you. And Scientology concepts have a nasty habit of sticking into people's views of life.

Scientology concepts get in people's minds and they have a tendency to format other ideas a person has.

So you don't just think you're pissed-off at something--you think there has been a break in ARC. You think that is the phenomenon.

That is why it is so hard for some people to abandon Scientology and for others to still think there is some value in it.

If you have mental paradigms that you use to view the world that are based on Scientology concepts, you will never be rid of the adverse effects of it.

We all have concepts that we use to format what we experience--paradigms like cause and effect and space and time. This is the basis of Immanuel Kant's philosophy.

But when those concepts are Scientology concepts the person can drive themselves mad.

Some people consider seeing things through these concepts as wins. You hear this in success stories all the time. "I now know I am a powerful Thetan" or "I now understand the tech of PTSness" etc.

This person is formatting what he experiences in the world through a Scientology paradigm.

And once they finally blow or get kicked out they may still view the world through that paradigm, "My friend is so PTS"; "The trouble in the Middle East is because the people are so down-tone."

So if you find yourself evaluating yourself or your life or a friend or another or the world through a Scientology paradigm, just press the reset button on your ideas about it."

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[DagwoodGum]

Re: Wrong Whys, Out-Lists and sanity

Originally Posted by The Anabaptist Jacques
... Granted, there are many factors that can break up a marriage, but a marriage built on a Scientology paradigm, that is 2D Terminal, the greatest good of moving up the Bridge, etc, is bound to unwind faster than most.

The Anabaptist Jacques



That does not reflect an accurate interpretation of marriage from the perspective of the subject of scientology, although it is reasonable to argue that it reflects the role of marriage from the perspective of the Co$.

The difference being that the church equates its own interest with that of 'the greatest good'. There is actually nothing about the subject of scientology which would inherently support such a limited view of 'the greatest good'.


A slight, yet substantive, digression: what I see to be both particularly perverse about service facsimiles is how they often closely, but not exactly, mirror a truth.

That quality makes them both effective as behavioral tools for making one's self right as well as pernicious for being difficult for an individual to spot for himself and to eliminate as a repeated pattern of behavior. In a sense " it must be right because it's true", and therefore "it can't be stopped because that would be agreeing to a lie".

The scientology concept of ethics reflecting behavior directed towards the 'the greatest good', is a very reasonable (and therefore true) consideration in itself. To the degree the Co$ succeeds in implanting in its individual members with the consideration that 'the greatest good is that which promotes the interests of the church' (or l. ron hubbard), it will have succeeded in implanting a new serfac within that member; one which is quite difficult to spot as a serfac due to the constant reinforcement it gets from the church community.

This serfac can only be eliminated by spotting the false consideration (i.e. in scientologese false data) of equality between the Co$'s interests and 'the greatest good'.

The reason for the digression: your argument appears to be based on accepting that church implanted serfac as if it were a fundamental truth of the subject of scientology. It isn't. It is The Fundamental Truth of the Church of Scientology. That is an important and significant distinction.

I see a marriage based on establishing conditions for actually promoting the greatest good (and not simply some 'good' as defined by some social institution, e.g. the Co$) as a very valid thing.

In fact, I would go so far as to claim that such a marriage is inherently loved-based in a way that common love marriages are not in that it reflects a concern for all others in its fundamental inception, not simply the parties immediately involved. That is an expansive view of love and is a good thing in itself, however the marriage may actually work out.

Mark A. Baker​

"Because nothing has the be true forever. Just for long enough, to tell you the truth."

- T. Pratchett, The Truth
​