iScientology.org - A new home for Independent Scientology?

[OperatingSP]

iScientology.org

Random excerpts of interest:

NOTICE: This non-commercial website is NOT owned by nor affiliated with the Church of Scientology in any way, shape or form. For more information, click here.

http://www.iscientology.org/faq

Does Independent Scientology demand or require any form of donation?
No!

Does Independent Scientology use disconnection or fair game?
No.

What role does money play in Independent Scientology?
Independent Scientologists believe that services should be affordable, that they should not be priced out of reach and that you do not need to be wealthy to go up the Bridge. Individual practitioners set their own prices.

http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/management

So if you want to meet the Leader of Independent Scientology, just look in the mirror.

http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/beliefs

The only “acceptable truth” is full truth.

LRH was neither perfect nor a sociopath.

The use of disconnection, dirty tricks and "fair game" to silence whistle blowers, critics and dissenters is evil.

The ONLY acceptable code of conduct for a Scientology organization is the Auditor's Code.

The end does not justify the means.

Anyone is free to practice Scientology regardless of race, color, creed, income bracket or sexual preference.

Management of Scientology organizations is unnecessary.

Marty's post announcing iScientology.org :

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/iscientology-org/

iScientology.org

Posted on October 12, 2012 by martyrathbun09 | 3 Comments

Steve Hall has done it again, and even bigger and better than ever before.

The last chapter of my book The Scientology Reformation: What Every Scientologist Should Know refers folk to gateways into the Independent Scientology movement. One of the central resources noted is Steve Hall’s latest creation, iScientology.org, the Voice of Independent Scientology, guaranteeing Scientology as a force for good.

Here is a brief preview from Steve giving a taste of the breadth of the site as a central resource for Independent Scientologists:

“Using Scientology to Fix Scientology” which is a History of the Indie movement http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/history
“Rebooting Scientology” — http://www.iscientology.org/resources/essays/rebooting-scientology
“START A GROUP! It’s 1950 All Over Again” — http://www.iscientology.org/resources/essays/start-a-group
Article explaining the Independent Scientology logo — http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/symbology
Article explaining no management — http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/management
Ball busting article on “What is an Independent Scientologist” — http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/what-is-an-independent-scientologist
I mean it’s just a ball busting website. And unlike Corporate Scientology’s cold lifeless corporate Corbis-generic website, ours really has life and a unique personality.
There’s even an article with photos on how to replace the battery on a Quantum. http://www.iscientology.org/resources/technical-info/mark-vii-battery-replacement
Check out the Links page which is pretty cool. It describes each of our websites with photo of each. — http://www.iscientology.org/links
FAQ to answer any question. — http://www.iscientology.org/faq
It also lists the Beliefs of Independent Scientology (something people search engines for) — http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/beliefs
There’s a place to order an Independent Scientologist t-shirt — http://www.iscientology.org/resources/promotional/indie-t-shirt
Article on re-opening the Training Bridge with photos of Jimmy Rebel’s place — http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/training/making-auditors
Articles to explain why they need Training where you learn how to handle the Super Barriers of life — http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/training/above-counter-effort
All the links to download Dan Koon’s training checksheets — http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/training/free-independent-training-cheeksheets
An article giving LRH’s intention for Academy Training — http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/training/training-in-the-independent-field
Article about iScientology — http://www.iscientology.org/about-us
There’s a whole section laying out key LRH References on applicable subjects regarding Independent Scientology
There are book reviews on 8 key books (with pictures) — yours, plus Frederick Douglass, Sociopath Next Door — your entire reading list.
Plus I have one article from Jim Logan — the one on 3-swing floating needles as out tech.
Article on what they should do as an Indie Scientologist — http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/what-should-i-do

 

[OperatingSP]

Get your t-shirt (or not). Freak everyone the hell out (or not), including your fellow Exes. Wear the t-shirt on LRH Way, by the HGB, in Clearwater, at Flag, and REALLY freak everyone the hell out (or not).

No, I'm not seriously recommending anyone here buy the t-shirt. But I think the Indies having their own t-shirt is an excellent idea for them. If they wear it on LRH Way, or near the HGB, or in Cleaerwater, or at Flag, the effect, the lulz, would be.... interesting and signficant.

http://www.iscientology.org/resources/promotional/indie-t-shirt

Independent Scientology t-shirt

A Dallas Independent Scientologist volunteered to get T-shirts made on demand at her cost. They are $15 for a 100% for a pre-shrunk cotton tee, and $20 for a polo style shirt. The Independent Scientologist logo is printed on front along with a quotation.

No profit is made on the shirt. These are being produced at her cost in an effort to do her share.
"The work was free. Keep it so."

Contact Jennifer Bell for details

 

[Lulu Belle]

Gotta say, the design work of the site is beautiful.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

"The work was free ... keep it so"




The "work" was never free ... and the Indies are all as mad as hatters if they believe for a moment that it was.

 

[Gib]

Re: "The work was free ... keep it so"

The "work" was never free ... and the Indies are all as mad as hatters if they believe for a moment that it was.

That's about how I came to the conclusion. Should be the work was free to lrh since he got others to do the research and then donate to the cause, and then work and work so as to buy one expensive bridge actions thereby working for the church in the end.. So of course it was free (to lrh), but not to the public.

 

[Sindy]

Gotta say, the design work of the site is beautiful.

I agree. Steve Hall is good at what he does. I don't have to believe in what they do to recognize a passionate work of personal conviction. Most of these people are very good, loving people.

 

[Veda]

Steve Hall's specialty is marketing. Right now he's concentrating on marketing Hubbard's "Bridge," and Hubbard's psychological Guidance.

 

[Claire Swazey]

The work is free thing never made sense to me. Not when I was in CofS, not when I was an Indie, and not now.

It is an utterly nonsensical phrase with absolutely no relation to reality.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Right now he's concentrating on marketing Hubbard's "Bridge," and Hubbard's psychological Guidance.

If someone out there really wants to buy a "bridge" then please send me a PM as I'm marketing one of my own. I promise to work with you on the terms so that it is affordable to all. (picture of it is below)

 

[degraded being]

.
.
".....Independent Scientologists believe,.........."

"...Scientology is an applied spiritual philosophy, scientific in approach, that qualifies as a religion in the Eastern sense...."



1..Ron said: "applied religious philosophy"....they say "spiritual". Do they have a bit A bit of charge on the word "religious".

2. "In the Eastern sense"

3. "scientific". They wouldn't know what scientific was if they fell over it.

I'm going to use that anytime I want to BS someone.
Person A: "So... you said that you would pay me back the money today...where is it?"
Person B: "I meant i would pay you back today in the Eastern sense".


And... Interesting to see some arrogant fucker telling everyone what (all) INDEPENDENT scientologists believe.

 

[What's It All About]

Steve Hall's specialty is marketing. Right now he's concentrating on marketing Hubbard's "Bridge," and Hubbard's psychological Guidance.

Hubbard is so obviously Dr. Evil. Just look at the demented toad. Apologies to the innocent and charming real toads of the world.

The gross flaws in the indies' thinking is that Hubbard wasn't a sociopath (right: he was a psychopath) and that there is a "bridge to total freedom". Unless you want to call it the Brooklyn Bridge, which has already been sold and resold to suckers everywhere.

And it amazes me that they claim that they're presenting the whole truth! Liar, liar, organization's on fire!

And using Scientology to fix Scientology is like giving more black mamba venom to people who've already been bitten and have somehow survived. Thank you, sir, may I have another dose of poison?!

There's both delusion and dishonesty in this effort. It's delusional to think that they can turn this lead into gold (well, maybe for themselves) and dishonest to think that they can "rebrand" Hubbard as a flawed genius who actually did anything to uplift mankind (other than himself, and it didn't even work for him!).

Anyone with internet access can figure out the truth about Hubbard's real legacy of cruelty, lies and greed.

Well, gather ye t-shirts while ye may. Steve Hall, Marty and Mike, et al spent decades empowering psychopaths; it's all they know. So they got disillusioned with their original psychopathic drug of choice and now are trying to get high on the new drug: redeeming the "legacy" of the Super Psychopath himself. Getting rich at the same time wouldn't hurt either.

It's more like "iKoolaid" or "Keep Koolaid Working!". Sorry, it just doesn't. Get your thirst for knowledge (if that's what's going on) quenched elsewhere.

 

[What's It All About]

The work is free thing never made sense to me. Not when I was in CofS, not when I was an Indie, and not now.

It is an utterly nonsensical phrase with absolutely no relation to reality.

Much of the time, what Hubbard & Flunkies say is nonsensical and has not relation to reality.

Unless they are quoting what Lafayette plagarized, which sometimes does make sense.

 

[Gib]

.
.
".....Independent Scientologists believe,.........."

"...Scientology is an applied spiritual philosophy, scientific in approach, that qualifies as a religion in the Eastern sense...."



1..Ron said: "applied religious philosophy"....they say "spiritual". Do they have a bit A bit of charge on the word "religious".

2. "In the Eastern sense"

3. "scientific". They wouldn't know what scientific was if they fell over it.

I'm going to use that anytime I want to BS someone.
Person A: "So... you said that you would pay me back the money today...where is it?"
Person B: "I meant i would pay you back today in the Eastern sense".


And... Interesting to see some arrogant fucker telling everyone what (all) INDEPENDENT scientologists believe.

well I don't disagree with you. And I no mean to derail this tread or anything. But something I just thought of out of the blue while surfing here.

Is there scientific evidence of people dreaming? :confused2:

I dream, know it's true for me. I assume it's true for others. :confused2:

 

[degraded being]

well I don't disagree with you. And I no mean to derail this tread or anything. But something I just thought of out of the blue while surfing here.

Is there scientific evidence of people dreaming? :confused2:

I dream, know it's true for me. I assume it's true for others. :confused2:

If you think your question is related to my post it is not a derail, if it is not related to my post it is a derail that would be better in a thread of it's own.

My comment was about the "scientific approach" of the "spiritual philosophy" of scientology, which is, a "religion in the Eastern sense", or so they claim.

Their approach is not scientific.

 

[OperatingSP]

The following has been posted and [EDIT: HAS BEEN APPROVED] on Marty's site.

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/iscientology-org/#comment-233727

CommunicatorIC | October 13, 2012 at 10:27 pm | Reply

Thoughtful (Steve), three quick questions, if I may.

You state, “Independent Scientology is all about Standard Tech (red on white).”
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/iscientology-org/#comment-233547

The iScientology.org FAQ states:
“Does Independent Scientology use disconnection or fair game? No.”
http://www.iscientology.org/faq

Similarly, the Beliefs section of the iScientology.org site states:
“The use of disconnection, dirty tricks and “fair game” to silence whistle blowers, critics and dissenters is evil.”
http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/beliefs

Given the above, do Independent Scientologists share the view of Jim Logan, see
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/there-is-no-such-thing-as-disconnection/#comment-39325

that HCO Bulletin of 10 September 1983, “PTSness and Disconnection” (providing “Therefore, the tech of disconnection is hereby restored to use, in the hands of those persons thoroughly and standardly trained in PTS/SP tech.) was NOT written by Ron, is NOT Standard Tech, and does NOT qualify as valid “red on white?”

If the answer to the above question is “yes,” how do we know this? How do we know this purported HCOB was not written by Ron, is not Standard Tech, and does not qualify as valid red on while?”

More generally, how do we determine what actually was written and/or approved by Ron, is Standard Tech, and is valid “red on white?”

 

[Gib]

If you think your question is related to my post it is not a derail, if it is not related to my post it is a derail that would be better in a thread of it's own.

My comment was about the "scientific approach" of the "spiritual philosophy" of scientology, which is, a "religion in the Eastern sense", or so they claim.

Their approach is not scientific.

no problem.

I just had the thought and question, that's all. Nothing to do with you or anything really. Just all of the sudden had the thought and question out of the blue. I'll leave at that for my own research now that I think about it.

 

[Veda]

The following has been posted and [EDIT: HAS BEEN APPROVED] on Marty's site.

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/iscientology-org/#comment-233727

According to Robert Vaughn Young, the 1983 HCOB on Disconnection was written by him on orders from David Miscavige. Did Miscavige receive orders from Hubbard to have it written? I don't know. Since so much that Miscavige did was the result of orders from Hubbard, from spitting in people's faces to looting the Missions, it wouldn't be surprising, but, as far as I know, this is undetermined.

Independent Scientoogists, of course, blame it entirely on Miscavige, who, in their minds, began the transition of Scientology into a cult at that point - they think it wasn't a cult before - having "hijacked" Scientology, and "reversed" Hubbard's 1968 "Reform Code" which "cancelled Fair Game, Disconnection, and Security Checking."

In reality, none of these were discontinued, but merely continued more discreetly. The public use of the name 'Fair Game' was prohibited because "it caused bad public relations," Disconnection was continued but modified and somewhat disguised, and Security Checking had its name changed to Integrity Processing, before being once again called Security Checking, beginning in January 1977 - the PR flap had blown over by then.


Below are reposts that provide some background:

From the Village Voice blog from a few months ago...

From a poster named "Xenu," in reply to another poster named "Sketto":

Since I worked for HCO [Hubbard Communications Office] during the 1970s, I'd thought I'd chime in with what I personally witnessed during those years.

Hubbard actually did cancel disconnection, after Australia had cracked down, and New Zealand was on the verge of outlawing the cult. Not only did he cancel disconnection, but he also banned Fair Game, sec checks, and the recording of what went on in auditing sessions. Way cool, huh?

The only problem was that the policy letter cancelling those things was only issued to the New Zealand government commission that was considering the banning of Scientology. [Note: It was also mentioned in a few other places, mostly PR literature for the broad public.]

I oversaw a ton of disconnection during the 1970s, and had to disconnect from a couple of people myself. I personally saw that they continued to happen at major Class IV [now called Class V] and SO [Sea Org] orgs just as they always had. Nothing changed... Sec checks and Fair Game continued, despite the wholly disingenuous sham of policy change.

Andre Tabayoyon, and various other poster here, who were in HCO in the '70s, can easily vouch for me on this...

Here's some more from Xenu over at Tony O's at the Village Voice:

...Hubbard was getting a lot of PR flack over disconnection, so he wrote a policy which would help PR a lot without changing anything significant. I'm sure it was meant to be misunderstood by outsiders...

The policy did NOT cancel disconnection, rather it said that 'disconnection as a condition' was cancelled. Now, one might well ask, WTF is 'disconnection as a condition'?

If you dig through some ancient ethics folders, you would find that they would often explicitly state that the subject of the ethics order was to disconnect from one or more other parties who would be named in the ethics order, and that reinstatement to good standing would not happen until that had been done. THAT was disconnection as a condition.

So we stopped naming names of people to be disconnected from in ethics orders. Instead, Type A PTS would be told that they had to handle or disconnect, and if handling was impossible, well, too bad! And people still had to disconnect from SPs... the Nov '68 policy had no real impact other than PR.


From Volume One of the OEC Course, HCO Division, a.k.a. a Green Volume, from 1974, HCOPL dated 23 December 1965, 'Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists', and on page two of that HCOPL there is a list of suppressive acts over forty lines long - most of the page.

"Suppressive acts are defined as actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce, or impede Scientology or Scientologists...

"[Such suppressive acts include] public disavowal of Scientology... public statements against Scientology.

"[Suppressive acts also include] continued membership in a divergent group; continued adherence to a Suppressive Person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or group by HCO; failure to handle or disavow or disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts; being at the hire of anti-Scientology groups or persons..."

Disconnection was standard Scientology policy and practice in the 1970s.

When Hubbard's 1968 sham cancellation of Disconnection (and Fair Game) was seen to have created some amount of confusion, during a period of schism in the early 1980s, a decision was made to issue a reaffirmation of Disconnection, but anyone seriously involved with Scientology in the 1970s knows that disconnection was never discontinued. "Handle or disconnect" was always standard practice, no matter how it was disguised or named.

Hope this helps.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Much of the time, what Hubbard & Flunkies say is nonsensical and has not relation to reality.

Unless they are quoting what Lafayette plagarized, which sometimes does make sense.

I think Hubbard PRd a lot of stuff. I say that because, from what I read in the book Dianetics In Limbo, which depicts events in the very early 50s- he was money-centric all along.

Most here know that I still value a number of things I learned in Scn. Probably always will, though, if I'd gotten into Buddhism at the same age, I'm sure I'd have learned just as much- probably more. But even with those feelings of mine, even when I was really into it and hoping to make a go of it in CofS, when I considered it to be my church- it was glaringly obvious to me that the stuff was expensive, and that he'd always charged for it. The phrase never rang true to me even when I was a bot.

 

[OperatingSP]

From Volume One of the OEC Course, HCO Division, a.k.a. a Green Volume, from 1974, HCOPL dated 23 December 1965, 'Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists', and on page two of that HCOPL there is a list of suppressive acts over forty lines long - most of the page.

"Suppressive acts are defined as actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce, or impede Scientology or Scientologists...

"[Such suppressive acts include] public disavowal of Scientology... public statements against Scientology.

"[Suppressive acts also include] continued membership in a divergent group; continued adherence to a Suppressive Person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or group by HCO; failure to handle or disavow or disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts; being at the hire of anti-Scientology groups or persons..."

Interestingly, it appears Steve Hall (Thoughtful) anticipated this line of attack by defining Standard Tech as including only "red on white":

The Freezone is a catch all term that includes compete and total squirrels in it, while Independent Scientology is all about Standard Tech (red on white) and is never going to come off that.

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/iscientology-org/#comment-233547

The above HCOPL in the OEC is a "green on white," and thus according to Steve Hall NOT part of Standard Tech.

I have previously seen this technique used by Independent Scientologists who are caught between: (1) trying to uphold, defend and maintain KSW; and (2) avoid the more unsavory and unacceptable things that Ron said, instructed, etc. That is, to define such things as outside "Standard Tech." In this case, Steve Hall attempts to do this by defining "Standard Tech" as including only "red on white" -- i.e., HCOBs.

I fully anticipate the critical response will be to find and publish objectionable HCOBs -- i.e., examples of "red on white."

 

[SpecialFrog]

Does all Hubbard "scripture" divide nicely into red / green? Where do all books and lectures fit?