Indie Scientologist Facebook Group Guidelines

Terril park

Sponsor
The merits (or lack thereof) of policy are irrelevant to this.

It is fine to be against abuses but from your own statement this has nothing to do with policy as abuse could be both on- or off-policy.

Listing being "off-policy" as one of the CoS crimes implies that policy is something that should be followed, which contradicts the idea that only "red-on-white" material matters.

If only "sensible" policy should be followed then going "off-policy" is a reasonable thing to do and it is not something that you can criticize the CoS for doing.

I think what it comes down to is that the Martyologists want to call themselves real Scientologists for their adherence to "red-on-white" but still believe LRH policy is right except when it isn't, which they can judge but the CoS can't.

Presumably any policy that makes them out to be squirrels and SP enemies of Hubbard, Scientology and the human race is on the "ignore" list.

There is no substitute for good judgement.
 

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
From the OP: "Should a person so removed later wish to rejoin the group they may do so after they have shown and proven that they can be advocates for the 10 points of Keeping Scientology Working – by L. Ron Hubbard.".

Does the group's admin provide free Kaopectate for chronic diarrhea that results from drinking all that kool aid? Sheesh. :duh:
 

SpecialFrog

Silver Meritorious Patron
One can judge which policies are worth using or vice versa.

But they aren't accusing the CoS of poor judgement over which policies to use, they are accusing the CoS of being off policy, which implies that Hubbard's judgement is what matters.

I'd be happy for them to say that policy is not Scientology and each policy should be assessed on its own merits, but there seems to be a reluctance to come out and say that.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
But they aren't accusing the CoS of poor judgement over which policies to use, they are accusing the CoS of being off policy, which implies that Hubbard's judgement is what matters.

I'd be happy for them to say that policy is not Scientology and each policy should be assessed on its own merits, but there seems to be a reluctance to come out and say that.

That is one of the stances of some Indies (interesting to see how my term has travelled, yes?). Not all, though. And that's something a lot of critics are too stupid to get. (present company excluded)

The problem with that stance is that it ignores the fact that there are things Hubbard actually wrote in policy and, in some cases, in tech, that should not be considered or followed in any way by anyone seeking enlightenment and happiness or any sort of decent life.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Part of the non-Cof$ PR line is that Hubbard was a flawed man, just like everyone else. This vague statement is meant to make people believe that non-Cof$ Scientology has been cleansed of any of Hubbard's flaws. What exactly these 'flaws' were is not admitted or stated with any clarity.

He is meant to be seen as an extraordinarily brilliant man with a few foibles.

His use and abuse of countless people over decades is not discussed.

His lying about every area of his life and achievements is not discussed.

His decision to cloak his fraud in religious garb is not discussed.

I could write pages, but I won't...

And what we see is the likes of Rathbun, Rinder, and Robles being photographed alongside Hubbard's volumes of lies and brainwashing.

martryshack.jpg


rey_leslie.jpg


0.jpg


Why do they do this?

They do it so that their customers, or potential customers, will be assured that everything thing they do is 100% Hubbard KSW. 100%. Nothing added in, nothing taken out.

"Ah mm... we don't use any of the bad policy."

OK then, non-Cof$ Scientology has been around for decades, so you've had plenty time to comb through Hubbard's policies. Show us your list of policies you don't and won't put into practice.I don't think you can, because even though you've had decades to do it, this weeding out of the bad has not even been attempted by the Freezone or Indies.*

*Don't bother with clearbird or the Pilot - I'm specifically talking about the Freezone and Indies.

And yes Claire, I am aware that every Scientologist is different, and I acknowledge your concerns about the herding of cats.


 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I don't think you can, because even though you've had decades to do it, this weeding out of the bad has not even been attempted by the Freezone or Indies.

It would be a lot easier to weed in the policies than to weed them out. In other words, toss everything out, then make use of a few that make sense. Or at least, some parts of a few that make sense. It wouldn't be Scientology, of course. :)

Paul
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
It would be a lot easier to weed in the policies than to weed them out. In other words, toss everything out, then make use of a few that make sense. Or at least, some parts of a few that make sense. It wouldn't be Scientology, of course. :)

Paul

I think you're right.

Non-Cof$ Scientology has two faces.

One face says to their customers "Don't worry, we're 100% KSW. Nothing taken out, nothing added in." The other face tells non-Scientologists "Don't worry, we've taken all the bad stuff out."

7817_full_image.jpg

 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I would take issue with the phrase "the non CofS Scn pr line". Rather, I would say "A pr line believed by SOME in the non CofS Scn set of venues/scene/whatever".

The problem I have with the dissection of Indies and FZers done here is that it generalizes like a mad motherfucka. Like, they're all the same. That may play pretty well with CofS stuff, since they're centralized, they're all dancin' to DM's tune, if you get disconnected from, then nobody there can ever talk to you (unless it's the IJC. Good fucking luck wid dat). The non CofS Scn set of venues is comprised of individuals, some of whom resist any centralization, criticize Hubbard and have no use for Marty.
 

SpecialFrog

Silver Meritorious Patron
The problem I have with the dissection of Indies and FZers done here is that it generalizes like a mad motherfucka. Like, they're all the same.

While it is fair to object to Martyologists co-opting the term "Independent Scientologists", I think they have done so with some degree of success to the point where it is not unreasonable to use capital-I Independent or Indie to denote that group.

I usually try and call them Martyologists but sometimes use other designations.

That group seems to be struggling not to define its borders, so as to claim to be inclusive and mark charges of "squirrelling" harder to pin down. However, it seems unable to resist doing so in order to prevent making the tent big enough to allow criticism of Hubbard, praise for any previous generation of non-CoS Scientologists, etc.

Maybe this can be traced back to engrams from the clam that had hinges with competing desires to be open and shut. :)

I think it is valid to talk about the neuroses of this group without having to add, "but of course this doesn't apply to all non-CoS Scientologists" to every statement.

In fact I think the same kind of tension seems to exist in other non-CoS Scientology groups, though the borders may be significantly different.
 

Sindy

Crusader
Originally Posted by Claire Swazey

The problem I have with the dissection of Indies and FZers done here is that it generalizes like a mad motherfucka. Like, they're all the same.

:thumbsup: 100 % agree with you.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
When you remove all the PR and the endless bluff and bluster, the cofs, the dependents and the FreeZone are pushing the exact same hubbard line, the 'bridge to Clear and OT' ... but (factually) neither 'Clear nor OT' exist, so they are equally FOS and I don't understand all the angst about it.


:faceslap:
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
My post does not to apply to every Non-Cof$ Scientologist.

To be specific, it doesn't apply to Mark Baker and a guy I've heard about who lives on a mountain in Mongolia.

I mention Mark because he doesn't particularly care what Hubbard said, and the guy in Mongolia, because he has never even heard of Scientology.

If that list is too short for you, please feel free to compile a list of your own.
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
I would take issue with the phrase "the non CofS Scn pr line". Rather, I would say "A pr line believed by SOME in the non CofS Scn set of venues/scene/whatever".

The problem I have with the dissection of Indies and FZers done here is that it generalizes like a mad motherfucka. Like, they're all the same. That may play pretty well with CofS stuff, since they're centralized, they're all dancin' to DM's tune, if you get disconnected from, then nobody there can ever talk to you (unless it's the IJC. Good fucking luck wid dat). The non CofS Scn set of venues is comprised of individuals, some of whom resist any centralization, criticize Hubbard and have no use for Marty.

It's the same old problem with labeling that crops up occasionally. I know when I speak of Scientologists I mean CoS Scientologists and hardcore fundies - this 'Indie" group that is mentioned in the OP sounds like fundies to me. But as was pointed out, they've pretty much co-opted the Independent/Indie lable for themselves which further muddies the arena.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
My post does not to apply to every Non-Cof$ Scientologist.

To be specific, it doesn't apply to Mark Baker and a guy I've heard about who lives on a mountain in Mongolia.

I mention Mark because he doesn't particularly care what Hubbard said, and the guy in Mongolia, because he has never even heard of Scientology.

If that list is too short for you, please feel free to compile a list of your own.

Nah. I'm doing fine. And you're aces in my book.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
It's the same old problem with labeling that crops up occasionally. I know when I speak of Scientologists I mean CoS Scientologists and hardcore fundies - this 'Indie" group that is mentioned in the OP sounds like fundies to me. But as was pointed out, they've pretty much co-opted the Independent/Indie lable for themselves which further muddies the arena.

Yah. I don't really have reservations about the coopting of the Independant Scn'ist label (which has been around for a long time) or (my) label "Indie Scn'ist." It was more that I think sometimes there are posts that sort of seem to imply that they're all the same. One can get away with that logic when discussing the actual CofS members, it being all centralized, etc- but can't really do that with the herd of cats that constitutes the on CofS Scn scene.

I don't even know if I'd typify all Martyologists. I think you could get a range there, too. I have friends who kind of like him and maybe could be considered to be Martyologists of a sort, but these friends wildly vary in their own limits as to what they'll put up with or not.

This brings me to wonder how cultic his deal is. I know he would nuke a post that is on his blog that he doesn't like- which he has the right to do, I suppose, though given the fact that he nukes perfectly polite posts just cuz he doesn't like the stance, I gotta wonder...but anyway, what else might he do or not do in the face of defiance from one of his Indies?
 
Top