iScientology.org - A new home for Independent Scientology?

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
One (of many) things that just doesn't make any sense when it come to Marty & all the other Hubbo lovers is the fact that they have DONE the Bridge. They can't possibly think they are OT. If so then Marty would have scattered the SquirrelBusters to the winds with an OT glance... They cling to this idea that Hubbo has some magic route to OT, yet they've done the route and they still can't materialize a bowl of cereal for breakfast. Talk about cognitive dissonance...

Yet they still peddle the wonders of Hubbo's smoke & mirror game.
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
If, say, I happen to believe in Xenu and BTs, or I happen to believe in demons and Jesus coming back from the dead, that's pretty different from believing I should strangle unway travellers or marry young girls off against their will or kill Sharon Tate or bomb an abortion clinic.

It is true that some of the worst things man has ever done were done in the name of religion. My solution is to look at what the people are doing- and not whether they like bts on their sandwich.

I agree. Had Scientology not been presented with unrealistic claims, fortune consuming pricing and manipulative cultist practices, then I wouldn't care either. Unfortunately, people have been hurt, hustled, handled into emotional wrecks and with substantially less money.

Due to Scientology practices, I'm very very leery of Scientologists claiming they have fixed Scientology, i.e. Independent Scientologists. Like I said in an earlier post, if the Independent Scientologists would openly recognize the abuses that LRH perpetrated, not just scape goat DM, then I would look at the Indie movement with less criticism.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I agree. Had Scientology not been presented with unrealistic claims, fortune consuming pricing and manipulative cultist practices, then I wouldn't care either. Unfortunately, people have been hurt, hustled, handled into emotional wrecks and with substantially less money.

Due to Scientology practices, I'm very very leery of Scientologists claiming they have fixed Scientology, i.e. Independent Scientologists. Like I said in an earlier post, if the Independent Scientologists would openly recognize the abuses that LRH perpetrated, not just scape goat DM, then I would look at the Indie movement with less criticism.

I have never thought a reformed CofS would work.

I view indies and FZers as individual practitioners, and nothing more than that.

The choice needs to be there.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
The post I made is a general offering countering the fall back offered on the board that people, in particular Scientologists, are entitled to their own beliefs. The examples listed were beliefs that had horrendous consequences. Evaluating today, what were past beliefs, commonly accepted or declared by fiat during their respective times, gives perspective as to the implications of belief and consequences. Each one of the listed items were a result of accepting that belief, without question. Hence the direction of my post, to examine one's beliefs in conjunction with historical outcomes. Scientology as a belief system has produced the exact opposite of the beliefs stated by LRH.... yet people still believe.
No, Scientologists are entitled to their own beliefs. Always have been, always should be.

The examples you listed were actions that were horrible that may have been based on disgusting beliefs. What people give as excuses for their actions may not be what actually motivated them.

You simply cannot control or regulate what people think. Governments and cults that practice thought control are some of the worst organizations on Earth. And they all eventually fall.

Your belief that you should control other people's thoughts and beliefs is your right, you can believe that but I don't recommend you actually try to do it.

Bill
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Everybody is different. Some have one head, and some have two. Inside everybody is a little barrel with apples in it and one is always bad. You can't blame that on a barrel, because a barrel isn't even a fruit. And never forget, "an onion a day keeps the jimjams away".

I'm feisty, eh?


Well, it depends on the individual. Much is often attributable to the society, however it is often said that the individual is responsible for the society. But others may disagree with this. People have rights. Sometimes an individual disagrees with themselves, but that would depend on which individual, and nobody can say for sure if is a disagreement because that would be a matter of opinion, which people often disagree on. For example, last night I saw a pumpkin, ymmv.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
. . . I view indies and FZers as individual practitioners, and nothing more than that . . .

Such an atomised view is useless except as an "acceptable truth" in that it conceals that fundamental premise of Scientology, namely, "the group". In fact, the efforts to bring the FreeZone to heel by the Indie Dependents reveal that acting in unison is deemed to be the only way forward.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
A major problem with Marty and Steve Hall is that they obviously LIKE and attempt to follow Hubbard's ADMIN TECH (involving groups). Many indies have discarded much of the "third dynamic technology" as they have correctly found it to be the MAJOR SOURCE of WHY Scientology harms others in the name of achieving its goals.

Ethics is geared around "third dynamic" ideas. Just look at the Liability Formula where one is urged to "make up the damage to the group one has been pretending to be a part of". Hubbard's green-on-white policies, and other orders and instructions, involve "making a group survive", especially in some contest with "enemies". Hubbard's Lower Conditions involve the viewpoint of "betrayal" and battling it out with other groups who are trying to beat or harm you. THat attitude is built into the system.

Idiots like Marty and Steve still buy into all of the Admin & Ethics Tech, and it is THAT which makes them still so amazingly FANATICAL. That is why Steve comes across as a total dedicated mindless RonBot. Some other extant FZers have long ago abandoned most of the Admin and Ethics "tech" in favor of simply using auditing as a sort of mental/spiritual therapy. Many of them are no longer trying to "save the world" or "salvage this sector", but instead simply try to help people one-on-one with auditing. These sorts are largely first dynamic oriented, while Marty and Steve are still obviously VERY MUCH third dynamic oriented. It is the aligment with the crazy group that makes fanatical groups so crazy. This involves group insanity, group agreement and group momentum, and it usually is NUTS.

The notion of "putting in ethics on others" is just so much an ideological leftover from way too much involvement with Hubbard's Sea Org. Marty, Steve and others like them still suffer from so MUCH of the third dynamic aberration that Hubbard's slick over-indoctrination implanted into their soggy little heads.

Truthfully, I don't see much difference between Marty or Steve and extant Scientology church members. They are both quite fanatical in that they accept the large majority of EVERYTHING Hubbard said. They have yet to reach a point where they come to notice that some or much of Hubbard's writings need to be flushed right down the toilet, and NOT accepted and followed. But they have a long way to go. Sadly it seems, a VERY LONG WAY to go.

Marty and Steve are still playing Hubbard's game, just in a different context. They probably tuly think and believe that David Miscavige is actually the ONLY thing wrong in all of Scientology. :omg:

Yep, apparently they ARE that deluded. Thye still want to create a vital movement (group) that aims to bring Sceintology to all the people's of Earth - to thus salvage this sector! :duh:
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
One (of many) things that just doesn't make any sense when it come to Marty & all the other Hubbo lovers is the fact that they have DONE the Bridge. They can't possibly think they are OT.

I remember talking to Mark Johnson/Johnston around 1973. At the time he was the GOWW course sup, and some of us AOSHUK Treasury staff were doing the Finance Course in his courseroom. He was (old) OT VII or something and telling me with a straight face how he was running a field group on another (remote) planet. He gave every indication that he believed this, rather than was just pulling my leg.

Who knows what these trubies believe they are doing when their imaginations soar? People attest to "Clear OT" and all sorts of wondrous things involving states that might F/N on a meter but are impossible to disprove. They know they can't move a paper clip on the table in front of them, but have no problem believing they have juggled planets in the past or even maybe are doing so right now, just not ones nearby as it would cause too much hassle.

Paul
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Well, it depends on the individual. Much is often attributable to the society, however it is often said that the individual is responsible for the society. But others may disagree with this. People have rights. Sometimes an individual disagrees with themselves, but that would depend on which individual, and nobody can say for sure if is a disagreement because that would be a matter of opinion, which people often disagree on. For example, last night I saw a pumpkin, ymmv.


images


I have never thought a reformed pumpkin would work.

I view indies and FZers as individual pumpkins, and nothing more than that.

The circular thinking needs to be there.

HTH.​
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
It's not fair to lump all non-Cof$ Scientologists together, because (thought stopping cliche redacted) and (thought stopping cliche redacted).




 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
It's not fair to lump all non-Cof$ Scientologists together, because (thought stopping cliche redacted) and (thought stopping cliche redacted).

Alternately, some people seem to think that it's perfectly f
air to lump all non-Cof$ Scientologists together, because (thought stopping cliche redacted) and (thought stopping cliche redacted). :biggrin:


 

Smilla

Ordinary Human

Alternately, some people seem to think that it's perfectly f
air to lump all non-Cof$ Scientologists together, because (thought stopping cliche redacted) and (thought stopping cliche redacted). :biggrin:



You comment is completely indignificating.

Your should know better than to indulge in ad hominidism with straw donkeys.
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

They know they can't move a paper clip on the table in front of them, but have no problem believing they have juggled planets in the past or even maybe are doing so right now, just not ones nearby as it would cause too much hassle.

Paul

There's only one Big Being in this sector authorized to juggle planets.
advance0026000.jpg
 

Gadfly

Crusader
There's only one Big Being in this sector authorized to juggle planets.

:thumbsup:

Hubbard couldn't manage to make a marriage work, but he can juggle planets! Right . . . . . :duh:

:hysterical:

The same with Tom Cruise. He is an "OT", he supposedly has all these amazing beyond-human abilities, yet he can't quite manage to bring about the simple effect of creating a decent marriage (which many other NON-OTs manage to do). :yes:

Interestingly, I remember Hubbard talking about people who imagine themselves as being able to create all sorts of hallucinatory effects. Of course he was criticizing such people. But, Hubbard and his followers were/are exactly the same - people who imagine themselves to be cause over all sorts of things that they are not - thus, hallucinatory cause.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Such an atomised view is useless except as an "acceptable truth" in that it conceals that fundamental premise of Scientology, namely, "the group". In fact, the efforts to bring the FreeZone to heel by the Indie Dependents reveal that acting in unison is deemed to be the only way forward.

It's an accurate view, held by somone (me) who was active in the scene and still knows people in it.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
oh I dunno Claire, I like bacon tomato and spinach sandwiches.

You can believe you should strangle strangers - fine and dandy. It's when you strangle a stranger that you're in trouble.

Should one try to nip such beliefs in the bud before they are expressed? I think many would say yes, if the belief wasn't in accord with their own beliefs of what is 'right'.

Steve Hall's iScilon site is pure Hubbarian (sounds like barbarian)

After his rant against the FZ and his froth spewing about how he's taking on the job of putting in ethics, blah blah. He's giving a very clear example of why "indies" of his and Marty's kind are a concern. It's quite clear to me they want the Co$ back under "their" control and given the depth of indoc. that is certainly not a happy thought for me.

He should put his marketing talent to better use, like upgrading the popeil pocket fisherman site...

A couple things:

1) does the sandwich have cooked spinach or raw spinach leaves. (sounds good) Mayonnaise?

2) I believe you are saying the thought is father to the deed. If so, then my Indie friends, husband and most (but not all) FZers I know get a pass there, too.

There are some fucked up people in it. One gets that with any venue or modality.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
My poodle is an Indie, and he's only ever bit somebody once. That was David Miscavige. So your opinions are unsound, not sensible, ad hominidistic and repugnificant. That's why I sacrifice my time to coming here every day, to comb this board for anything that might be even a bit negative, about Indees and Freeezoners. I will defend them until my last breath, and so will my poodle.

poodle-bastards.jpg
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
NEWS FLASH

Here are some examples of beliefs that people are entitled to.

Klu Klux Klan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

The Inquisition(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

Salem Witch Trials: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Human Sacrifice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

Adolf Hitler quote: "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."
(Reichstag Speech 1936) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Hitler_quotes

Humorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism

Blood Letting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting

Demonic Possession: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_possession

Galileo affair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Beliefs should be challenged, examined, and analyzed. The convenient excuse that people are entitled to their beliefs as a shield to deflect critical thinking, especially when said beliefs have lead to physical, emotional and financial harm in the past as well in the present, is just that, an excuse. Beliefs have real world consequences.

No, Scientologists are entitled to their own beliefs. Always have been, always should be.

The examples you listed were actions that were horrible that may have been based on disgusting beliefs. What people give as excuses for their actions may not be what actually motivated them.

You simply cannot control or regulate what people think. Governments and cults that practice thought control are some of the worst organizations on Earth. And they all eventually fall.

Your belief that you should control other people's thoughts and beliefs is your right, you can believe that but I don't recommend you actually try to do it.

Bill

My original post is an example of beliefs that had/have real consequences. As such, beliefs should be investigated, in this case Scientology. A person is entitled to believe in the most irrational subjective fallacies they choose, yet those beliefs still have consequences, such as the mental/emotional manipulation inherent within Scientology.

I never said I want to regulate or control peoples beliefs/thoughts. I said, "Beliefs should be challenged, examined, and analyzed." It's ironic you state that cults and governments practicing thought control are the worst organizations on earth and accuse me of doing the same while you defend a cult. Considering how indignant you are regarding challenging beliefs, twisting my words to fit a nonexistent agenda, your motivation is suspect and deemed irrelevant.
 
Top