Help! Skeptical Scientologist Facebook Group

Safe

Patron
Hi, my name is Wayne Froemke (also known as "Safe").

First of all, I am now finally an ex-Scientologist (if we define a Scientologist, one who believes in the religious ideas of L. Ron Hubbard.) At this point, if one wants to label me anything that has to do with Scientology, call me a Scientology technologist who is free to apply whatever works without any dogma of KSW.

My religion is now Progressive Christianity. So as far as religion goes, I'm a Progressive Christian.

After being too "unruly" with the truth on the "Scientolopedia" and "Free Scientologist" Facebook groups, I realized there was no religionist-free Scientology groups on Facebook. So I started new one, with this in mind, recently called "Skeptical Scientologists", which name caused an uproar with a scathing letter to me from David Hall of scientology-cult.com, claiming I was trying to unmock the independent Scientology movement.

I cannot associate with the independent movement because of their rigid religiosity. Most believe the same as church Scientologists, except they're independent of the church. But it's still more of the same KSW type controlling dogma. I can't have that.

What I'm trying to unmock and deinculcate is KSW, because it's done nothing but lead to tyranny. I prove in my group that KSW is an IMPLANT. In spite of that, some are still having trouble that LRH implanted them and lied to them. Recently now, I've posed the question, Did LRH try to control Scientologists? So far, dead head-in-the sand silence. Then I show text from LRH himself in 1952, that if somebody is trying to control them, they are being lied to. I've actually found this true in many cases.

I've also found that, apparently, every Scientology Facebook group is CLOSED. What kind of outreach and transparency example is that? I started closed at first, and now have 14 members, but it's not growing very fast. So I'd like your opinions, and perhaps you can help me.

1) What do you think of me making my group OPEN so anybody can join? I want to still have a safe place for those who may still use the tech but don't subscribe to KSW, worship LRH, or even worship any of his words, knowing some tech may be good or bad.

2) Would anybody here join my group and help me with my battle in trying to open the minds about how Hubbard inculcated them and that it wasn't just Miscavige? The antagonism I've gotten so far from the independent field is that I may be starting a new "Skeptical Scientologist" movement, and if that would ever happen, I'd be thrilled, though in the beginning, there was no intention to do this. It was the FEAR I got from the indies that made me recognize the fear of a "Skeptical" movement that were Scientologists. I had no idea this idea created such a threat to them.

So I could certainly use the help by others here joining me. My only rules there is to stay on topic in each thread, and to not use ad hominem, and try to use logical debate. Other than that, the turf for discussion and argument is wide open.

As a closed group, I don't believe I'm going to be able to count on their networking contacts to grow the membership. I think I have to make it open. Besides, the idea of a closed group sickens me.

Any help from those who still believe in the validity of at least some remnants of Scientology tech would be helpful. If you don't find any of the tech true, then this is not a group you would likely enjoy, however, you're still welcome.

I do talk about my Progressive Christianity there sometimes as a way to compare what has and is going on with Christianity and Scientology. Both have "terrible texts". It is a good way to communicate analogies of the same type of bullshit.

Again, I appreciate any possible help.

If you want, you can friend me on my facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/wayne.froemke

My group facebook page is at http://www.facebook.com/groups/347797335311190

Nobody can call me a squirrel because I no longer represent myself as a Scientologist. What a freedom! :)
 

Pooks

MERCHANT OF CHAOS
Hi, my name is Wayne Froemke (also known as "Safe").

First of all, I am now finally an ex-Scientologist (if we define a Scientologist, one who believes in the religious ideas of L. Ron Hubbard.) At this point, if one wants to label me anything that has to do with Scientology, call me a Scientology technologist who is free to apply whatever works without any dogma of KSW.

My religion is now Progressive Christianity. So as far as religion goes, I'm a Progressive Christian.

After being too "unruly" with the truth on the "Scientolopedia" and "Free Scientologist" Facebook groups, I realized there was no religionist-free Scientology groups on Facebook. So I started new one, with this in mind, recently called "Skeptical Scientologists", which name caused an uproar with a scathing letter to me from David Hall of scientology-cult.com, claiming I was trying to unmock the independent Scientology movement.

I cannot associate with the independent movement because of their rigid religiosity. Most believe the same as church Scientologists, except they're independent of the church. But it's still more of the same KSW type controlling dogma. I can't have that.

What I'm trying to unmock and deinculcate is KSW, because it's done nothing but lead to tyranny. I prove in my group that KSW is an IMPLANT. In spite of that, some are still having trouble that LRH implanted them and lied to them. Recently now, I've posed the question, Did LRH try to control Scientologists? So far, dead head-in-the sand silence. Then I show text from LRH himself in 1952, that if somebody is trying to control them, they are being lied to. I've actually found this true in many cases.

I've also found that, apparently, every Scientology Facebook group is CLOSED. What kind of outreach and transparency example is that? I started closed at first, and now have 14 members, but it's not growing very fast. So I'd like your opinions, and perhaps you can help me.

1) What do you think of me making my group OPEN so anybody can join? I want to still have a safe place for those who may still use the tech but don't subscribe to KSW, worship LRH, or even worship any of his words, knowing some tech may be good or bad.

2) Would anybody here join my group and help me with my battle in trying to open the minds about how Hubbard inculcated them and that it wasn't just Miscavige? The antagonism I've gotten so far from the independent field is that I may be starting a new "Skeptical Scientologist" movement, and if that would ever happen, I'd be thrilled, though in the beginning, there was no intention to do this. It was the FEAR I got from the indies that made me recognize the fear of a "Skeptical" movement that were Scientologists. I had no idea this idea created such a threat to them.

So I could certainly use the help by others here joining me. My only rules there is to stay on topic in each thread, and to not use ad hominem, and try to use logical debate. Other than that, the turf for discussion and argument is wide open.

As a closed group, I don't believe I'm going to be able to count on their networking contacts to grow the membership. I think I have to make it open. Besides, the idea of a closed group sickens me.

Any help from those who still believe in the validity of at least some remnants of Scientology tech would be helpful. If you don't find any of the tech true, then this is not a group you would likely enjoy, however, you're still welcome.

I do talk about my Progressive Christianity there sometimes as a way to compare what has and is going on with Christianity and Scientology. Both have "terrible texts". It is a good way to communicate analogies of the same type of bullshit.

Again, I appreciate any possible help.

If you want, you can friend me on my facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/wayne.froemke

My group facebook page is at http://www.facebook.com/groups/347797335311190

Nobody can call me a squirrel because I no longer represent myself as a Scientologist. What a freedom! :)


Hello safe, I remember you from ars. I recently saw you posting over in Martyland but I figured you wouldn't last too long as they are really still quite
indoctrinated over there. I'm glad you are setting up more lines of communication for exes or Scio's that have recently left and are interested in the truth. Give it a go. It can't hurt.
 

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
Much of what you describe already exists here on ESMB.

Facebook groups have the potential of reaching alot of people, just as ESMB does. Adding another discussion group in bringing attention to the church & it's abuses is a good thing.
 

Megalomaniac

Silver Meritorious Patron
... So I started new one, with this in mind, recently called "Skeptical Scientologists", which name caused an uproar with a scathing letter to me from David Hall of scientology-cult.com, claiming I was trying to unmock the independent Scientology movement. ...

Here on ESMB, we're not trying to unmock Scientology, at all. I mean, look at HelluvaHoax's posts, for example. All he does is mock Scientology.
 

The_Fixer

Class Clown
My thought is to let it be completely open and deal with whatever comes. You can moderate as may be necessary, but allowing open discussion will give your audience more faith in your process, if that makes sense to you.

From what I understand, Marty only allows what reflects his thoughts and beliefs. This will only leave you with sychophants and things will really lead nowhere.

Don't be afraid of the difficult questions and discussions. You will lose some, but I think you will gain a lot of respect, just as ESMB has done, in time.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I don't think discussion groups on Facebook work well at all. The format sucks. And the content cannot be searched for in Google so is effectively lost after a few days.

Facebook is great for simply passing the time while you're taking a dump. But for encouraging a good interchange of ideas? No.

Paul
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
Hi, Safe

I certainly approve of your position. Things keep changing as the situation between critics and Scientology, Inc. changes. That is true of all the groups that are critical of Scientology. chanology, WWP, ESMP, OCMB. Except Marty who is not Independent at all but a clone of Hubbardism.

Why not do what he does and use a WordPress blog? In my experience they work very well and still cost nothing.

sof
 

AngeloV

Gold Meritorious Patron
A skeptic of any kind can analyze a set of data, in this case the recordings and writings of LRH, and come to rational conclusions. If you are a skeptic your analysis should show that the following are either lies, harmful, stupid or complete fabrications:

That dianetics is a science
The History of Man book
The All about Radiation book
Scientology ethics
Disconnection
All of the space opera material including xenu, marcabians, the 5th invader force, implants, implant stations, etc.
The purification rundown
The RPF
The purported abilities of clears and OTs
Operating an organization by using the green volumes
Hubbard is Buddha reincarnated
Security checks
Body thetans
Locomotives on Venus
etc.

You say that you believe LRH lied. What do you think he lied about?
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
. . . Did LRH try to control Scientologists? So far, dead head-in-the sand silence. Then I show text from LRH himself in 1952, that if somebody is trying to control them, they are being lied to. I've actually found this true in many cases . . .

Hey Safe

I too remember with fondness your EPIC WWP posting binge.

You ask: Did LRH try to control Scientologists . . .

. . . The survival of a group depends upon the ability of its individual members to control their environment and to insist that the other group members also control theirs.

This is the stuff of which survival is made.

A sane group, knowing and using their technologies of handling men and mest, cannot help but control their environment.

But this depends upon the individual group member being sane, able to control his mest and those around him and using the tech of life, the tech of admin,the tech of specific types of activity.

Such a group inevitably inherits the culture and its guidance.
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 30 DECEMBER 1970 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

Control = Income.

When you have people who cannot control people on PE and Registration posts, your income falls or vanishes.

This comes about from the state of "self-determinism" in the society today.

What with advertising and stepped-up political and economic controls, the "selfdeterminism" of the general public is only reactivism.

As any control we exert upon the public brings about a better society, we are entirely justified in using control.

The best control, for PE and Registration purposes, includes the greater good of the applicant. Therefore, KNOWINGNESS must be included with control.

One must discover what is best for the applicant and then control him into obtaining it. Leaving it up to his "self-determinism" is really leaving it up to his reactive mind.

With our current rundown of processing (SOP Goals), any staff member will sooner or later get his or her control button freed up.

But if there are financial emergencies, as these affect all staff, the entire staff should be tested out for knowingness and control and those members who are best at it should be placed in Registration and the PE Foundation.

Priority of personnel by degree of ability to control is as follows:
Chief Registrar (Body Reg)
PE Director
Letter Registrar
D ofP
PE Personnel
D ofT

. . . At this stage it is necessary that our best control personnel come into the closest contact with the public.

Income is proportional to the control exertion of our personnel.

People with an abiding faith in the "self-determinism" of public persons should not be allowed near PE and Registration lines.

The control skill of a staff member can be tested. Bad-control factors are most easily recognized. Staffs should be tested on control.

Current rundown will eventually boost up all staff members to a high level of control. We may not be able to afford to wait and let income suffer.

The whole staff can have its control level raised by Upper Indoc. Upper Indoc is the most reliable test of control skill.
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 FEBRUARY 1961 - (Issue II) - CHOOSING PE AND REGISTRATION PERSONNEL

To live at all, one has to exert some control over his equals as well as his juniors and (believe it or not) his superiors . . .

In a group where members have some concept of controlling their environment and their fellows, you don't have loafers or out-ethics cats. Because the rest of the group, on an individual basis, just won't tolerate it.

IT IS A FAILURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL GROUP MEMBERS TO CONTROL THEIR FELLOWS THAT MAKES A GROUP HARD FOR ALL TO LIVE AND WORK WITH.

If it is present, when that is cured, the group will become a joy to be with and work will become a breeze.

If the stats of a group, large or small, are down, try it.

And get a REAL group in return that, collectively, can control the environment and prosper because its group members individually help control each other.
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 JULY 1982 - IMPORTANT - KNOWLEDGE REPORTS

. . . dude, did Rose Kennedy ever wear black?

Put simply, the control of others through the use of lies is at the heart of Scientology and has been since the day L Ron Hubbard, nuclear physicist, said he used Dianetics to cure war injuries. As time went on, L Ron Hubbard's statement proved only partially correct in that ONE way of controlling others is to lie to them. For ex-cult Scientologists, however, it remains the ONLY way for so long as they lack the funds and infrastructure to enforce the control by KRs, blackmail and extortion via PC folder and other intelligence information. And remember, the gathering of such information is, indeed, KSW.

Good luck with your Facebook group.
 

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
You go for it...facebook reaches many young people that are on it everyday all day! You have my support and I will friend you and join the team soon. I say friend all Scientologists - you can find them on linkedin too...and make it a game! Have some fun! It is fun to take the cult down!

Any ex is a good ex in my book! Anyone posting the truth about Scientology is helping others that are too weak, broke and broken. We must expose the truth in every format.

Good job!!:happydance:
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Ooh, you're "Safe". Pleased to meet you. We were posting on a.r.s. around the same time. I was still in, at first. Then later, not.

Nice to see you.
 

Reasonable

Silver Meritorious Patron
Interesting post:

I agree with you in that a person should be able to use what he wants and not use what he doesn’t and let it go at that. However then you really have no group because there is no agreement. But you could have a discussion group.

I find it funny how David Hall (whoever he is) said you are trying to unmock the independent Scientology movement showing once again you cannot have Scientology without controlling others. Scientologists cannot have disagreement; therefore they really cannot have any real group discussion or free thought. They can only work in closed groups where there is a person at the top saying what is acceptable or not.

It only “works” when run by a dictator. That is what KSW is all about. When you have KSW you have a tight knit group all walking in lock step doing the same thing --- the wrong thing!

But without KSW or some kind of rules list you have a bunch of people all thinking they are the leader. And since so much of ANY RELIGION is based on belief and made up theories may or may not have some truth in them that you have to have guidelines of what the people in the group believe in order to have a group.

Hopefully one day we won’t need belief groups at all.

Lastly, it would be interesting to join your group because I like talking about tech but I won’t because I do not want my name to ever be associated with Scientology again on the internet. I did that once when Scientology put up its web site and I am still paying for that today.

Good Luck
 

Safe

Patron
Wow, what a pleasant, unexpected response! I really value all this input. Thank you so much! When I have time, I may respond to each individual post. Thanks again. :)
 

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
I don't think discussion groups on Facebook work well at all. The format sucks. And the content cannot be searched for in Google so is effectively lost after a few days.

Facebook is great for simply passing the time while you're taking a dump. But for encouraging a good interchange of ideas? No.

You're so out of the ball park on this, Grumpy. The 'Spys R Us' Facebook has 100+ members now and is very active.. I think some exes do nothing the entire day but post on the group.

Several other groups are getting more members, and posting dox that mods here don't permit and getting the world out.
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
Interesting post:

,,,,,,,
I find it funny how David Hall (whoever he is) said you are trying to unmock the independent Scientology movement showing once again you cannot have Scientology without controlling others. Scientologists cannot have disagreement; therefore they really cannot have any real group discussion or free thought. They can only work in closed groups where there is a person at the top saying what is acceptable....

Good Luck

I do believe safe was referring to Steve Hall, since he's the only guy behind Scientology-cult.com and posts as "Thoughtful" on Martys blog. He is a ronbot of the highest order and has a long history of getting upset and trying to bully those questioning KSW or Ron's validity into silence. His brain is really fried.
 
Top