What's new

iScientology.org - A new home for Independent Scientology?

Xenu's Boyfriend

Silver Meritorious Patron


Xenu's Boyfriend, I see you have been posting here for only 9 days and I sincerely hope you stay and are not put off ... this 'argument' has been raging for years and many of us are just repeating ourselves for the 100th time now so, if some of us seem a little less than 'passionate' ... it's probably just exhaustion kicking in due to nothing ever changing!

Lol.


Anyway ... I love your posts and ...


:welcome2::welcome2::welcome2::welcome2::welcome2:




Hey Trouble,

Thank you for the lovely welcome. Your post means a lot to me and your concern. Like I said, I've never been a part of the church, and I don't have any family members who are Scientologists, but there is something about the Scientology story that really gets to me.

I think it is because my father was a bully, I was terrified of him, and I know what it means to be psychologically undermined, deconstructed, violated by someone or something that you trust. My father told me when I was 12 that he was determined to "break my spirit." When I look at my addictions, depression and PTSD sometimes I think he's right. But when I look at my life as a man who is still loving, who wants to fight for others, I think I won.

For me, reading the Scientology memoirs and the stories of leaving the church, has made me feel empowered. I also understand how abuse is a brain washing process, whether you are in a cult or not. It has been said, and I believe it is true, that if you chain a baby elephant to a stake for the circus, it will pull and tug but it won't be able to break free. Let that same elephant grown up to a full size adult with the power to pull out a thousand stakes, but because of the conditioning it received, it can't, because it won't even try any more. You can control it completely by what happens in its mind. I think about this sometimes when I think about people in the RPF, if it is possible to reach a point where you don't want to be saved.

It is therapeutic for me to be here, because I think leaving Scientology is a modern day liberation story, a contemporary theater of good vs. evil, with real bad guys. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or insensitive to other people's real experiences within the church, I'm just saying, I've seen real courage and real heroes as people stand up to this ultimate contemporary bully, The Church of Scientology. That gives me strength.

And when I think of children in Scientology, living out what feels like some Dickensian nightmare, I really get outraged. Right now, my activism is mostly in my words. I'm still new to the forum, we'll see. Maybe a demonstration is in my future. Anyway, thanks for the welcome.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Hey Trouble,

Thank you for the lovely welcome. Your post means a lot to me and your concern. Like I said, I've never been a part of the church, and I don't have any family members who are Scientologists, but there is something about the Scientology story that really gets to me.

I think it is because my father was a bully, I was terrified of him, and I know what it means to be psychologically undermined, deconstructed, violated by someone or something that you trust. My father told me when I was 12 that he was determined to "break my spirit." When I look at my addictions, depression and PTSD sometimes I think he's right. But when I look at my life as a man who is still loving, who wants to fight for others, I think I won.

For me, reading the Scientology memoirs and the stories of leaving the church, has made me feel empowered. I also understand how abuse is a brain washing process, whether you are in a cult or not. It has been said, and I believe it is true, that if you chain a baby elephant to a stake for the circus, it will pull and tug but it won't be able to break free. Let that same elephant grown up to a full size adult with the power to pull out a thousand stakes, but because of the conditioning it received, it can't, because it won't even try any more. You can control it completely by what happens in its mind. I think about this sometimes when I think about people in the RPF, if it is possible to reach a point where you don't want to be saved.

It is therapeutic for me to be here, because I think leaving Scientology is a modern day liberation story, a contemporary theater of good vs. evil, with real bad guys. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or insensitive to other people's real experiences within the church, I'm just saying, I've seen real courage and real heroes as people stand up to this ultimate contemporary bully, The Church of Scientology. That gives me strength.

And when I think of children in Scientology, living out what feels like some Dickensian nightmare, I really get outraged. Right now, my activism is mostly in my words. I'm still new to the forum, we'll see. Maybe a demonstration is in my future. Anyway, thanks for the welcome.



What a beautiful heartfelt message.

I'm very sorry to hear about what happened to you as a child, I know how things that occurred in those years can shape a persons future and bullying is especially nasty as it can create a myriad of unwanted reactions later in life ... for what it's worth it sounds to me as if you certainly did win, but I wish you hadn't needed to (win) in the first place. I know there are people here that have experienced emotional trauma via their own Fathers too so you are certainly not alone.

:no:

When I joined ESMB it was to meet Ex scientologists and, for want of a better word, 'normal' people (never in scientology) partly because losing cultic terminology (and thinking!) when chatting to each other was and is important to me. You're going to really enjoy it here, some of our funniest and brightest were never in (including one of the people that now runs the board) and your perspective is particularly valuable due to never having been in the cult mindset in the first place, and if you feel you receive something back by being here, well ... that will be the icing on the caek.

:flowers:
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
The behaviour of viewing someone's disagreement, or rejection of an opinion posted as an 'attack', is very Scientology.

Seems pointless to me, but Scientologists almost always feel that they are under attack from someone or something.

 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
The behaviour of viewing someone's disagreement, or rejection of an opinion posted as an 'attack', is very Scientology.

Seems pointless to me, but Scientologists almost always feel that they are under attack from someone or something.




Lol, true ... luckily, disconnection (ignoring communication) is apparently a comforting option for the (still) afflicted among us.


:whistling:
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Being disagreed with, for *some* Scientologists is a full-blown emergency, which causes them to have a mini nervous breakdown called an ARC Break that can only be resolved by connection to the JuJu Meter, and the utterance of the right incantations.

It's an attack, you see...

As this ARC Break/mini nervous breakdown only effects Scientologists, it might be better not to be a Scientologist, and go roller skating instead.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl03afAqeFQ&feature=relmfu[/video]









 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
The behaviour of viewing someone's disagreement, or rejection of an opinion posted as an 'attack', is very Scientology.

Seems pointless to me, but Scientologists almost always feel that they are under attack from someone or something.


I dunno. The reaction you describe seems sometimes to be a deliberate ploy to prey on the natural politeness most WOGs genuinely display. Playing the victim, and all that. Having said it, though, I am aware of just how much Scientology subsumes the psyche and becomes a part of the person. The subject is so subjective that comments about it are "heard" as "attacks on themselves".

How do you differentiate?
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I don't know of anyone (in the critical/skeptical/FZ/etc/Scn scene) outside CofS who views disagreement as an attack.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
The problem I see is this:

If there is evidence that a person decries the abuses of Scn- posts, etc, then saying they don't do it is not going to really work out all that well.

Assuming people are Scn'ists when they are not also isn't really going to work out all that well.

Assuming that people who do not RPF, have freeloader debts, high prices, crush regging, Sea Orgs are as bad as those who do also isn't going to work out that well.

The above set of factors and those alone constitute the stance from which I've posted on this thread last couple days or so.

I find it quite odd that when I make a comment (on this thread) about bigotry, someone writes a post about Scn'ists do this and Scn'ists do that re bigotry. Then, when I tell someone who does, sometimes, write ad hom posts to and about another person here - that I think they are attacking, all of a sudden there is a slurry of posts about Scn'ists and their views about attacking.

I would have thought that contributors would find it more apropos to play the "Scientologists do this and that" card when it is a Scientologist who makes the comments.

But, hey, quien sabe.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
I have seen not even one instance of Ad Hominid on this thread.

Alien_Hominid_cover.png
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
None of that, but a bit of Terril bashing ad homs. Plus I was accused of being a Scn'ist - which, as you know, is a major major insult, yah? :coolwink:
 
... The above set of factors and those alone constitute the stance from which I've posted on this thread last couple days or so.

I find it quite odd that when I make a comment (on this thread) about bigotry, someone writes a post about Scn'ists do this and Scn'ists do that re bigotry. Then, when I tell someone who does, sometimes, write ad hom posts to and about another person here - that I think they are attacking, all of a sudden there is a slurry of posts about Scn'ists and their views about attacking. ...

You might want to revisit the bit about 'missed withholds' and see if that doesn't explain your observations regarding commonly repeating online communication patterns.

http://www.freezoneearth.org/clearbird/Clearbird2004/sub1/class2/04mwh_outruds.htm :whistling:


Mark A. Baker :)
 
... Seems pointless to me, but Scientologists almost always feel that they are under attack from someone or something.


Do you honestly mean to suggest that posters of 'pro-tech' viewpoints have never been personally attacked on this board for the simple fact of having expressed an unpopular viewpoint, Smilla? :lol:


Mark A. Baker
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
The behaviour of viewing someone's disagreement, or rejection of an opinion posted as an 'attack', is very Scientology.

Seems pointless to me, but Scientologists almost always feel that they are under attack from someone or something.

:thumbsup:It is an intrinsic part of their "scriptures". They are :innocent: ULTIMATE GOOD :innocent: and are opposed by :angry: ULTIMATE EVIL :angry:. It is a core belief. Don't knock it, it makes you feel SO righteous!

By Scientology's definition, any disagreement or criticism makes one a Suppressive Person!! You hate anything that helps, you eat babies, you are attacking Scientology with every single breath.

Bill
 
Except that nobody connected to Scn, in or outside CofS, has posted anything about attacking.

Except you, in a response to me. Not that I care about it one way or the other really, I think it was just for rhetorical effect, I consider that we were both just squabbling.
But that is how the "attacking" thing got started.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
The real issue is ... we troll each other, for fun and because we can and we don't have any obligation to pretend to be filled with "ARC" because we often aren't, but there is (in most cases) a fondness for each other that, after all this time no amount of squabbling is ever going to kill.

:happydance:
 
The real issue is ... we troll each other, for fun and because we can and we don't have any obligation to pretend to be filled with "ARC" because we often aren't,

Yeah, true.....

but there is (in most cases) a fondness for each other that,

Yeah, true...(in most cases) :lol:

after all this time no amount of squabbling is ever going to kill.


:happydance:

:)
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
Marty has an answer for that.

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/then-there-is-me-tom-cruise/#comment-234375

So, people are supposed to follow Standard Tech by reading all of Hubbards red-on-white materials, interpreting them in a non-literal manner and then applying them exactly as written.

Got it?

This is easily explained. There were actually three separate L. Ron Hubbards, each with a distinct and separate personality.

Read about it here.

Ronald M. Whyte


Case No.: No. C-95-20091 RMWAI

Request for waiver, exemption, relief
and exclusion from final judgement
and permanent injuncction served upon
me 5/12/99
by Moxon and Kobrin.
Certified


Ronald M. Whyte,
United States District Judge,
United States District Court,
Northern District
280 South First St.
San Jose, California 95113

Continuing Jurisdiction for
Permanent Injunction.

and

Geoffrey C. Filbert,
1816 - 114th Ave. N.E.,
Bellevue, WA 98004,
(425) 453-8622,

Petitioner,


______________________________________________


Your Honor,

I Hereby request exemption, relief and exclusion from said injunction
on grounds that:

1. I entered the issue as a volunteer witness.

2. I was not in active concert or participation with Erlich et al in
that I did not follow any of their advice for the 14 month period
other than to furnish an affidavit (highly understated) and show up
for a Federal Deposition on "affidavit" of 4 hours, with less than 7
minutes of it being on that subject.

3. For 35 years I have practiced Dianetics and Scientology from the
ink signed authority to do so from L. Ron Hubbard, not his Churches,
successors, or claimants. For 35 years they have not produced to me,
nor the U.S. Justice Department his signature in ink showing their
authority, 1966-1978. The U.S. Justice Department, requested my
signature to close them in 1967, 1973 and 1978 which I withheld.

4. Since they refuse to furnish ink signed authority, and I have ink
signed authority to practice Dianetics and Scientology I have held min
valid for 35 years.

5. My ink signed authority precedes the "Guardians Office", "Ethics
Codes", "Cancellations", "Sea Orgs", "Scientology World Wide", and
"English Authority over Washington D.C.". The transfer of L. Ron
Hubbard's personal authority to 3 London Nonprofit Trust companies
(done in January, 1966) with forged signatures, which was done by the
English claimant, not the American Founder.

6. The right to contract and commerce under my 4/25/82 _Excalibur
Revisited_ book and copyright as principal.

7. My refusal to sanction the fraud of your court with the
misrepresentations made by RTC/BPI that there was a single "L. Ron
Hubbard", who produced those tapes and writings. The church "belief"
is of "a great spirit who could change his body size at will and have
2 or 3 different bodies in different locations". Thousands of
Scientologists will tell you that. I never held that belief. I held
the belief that a 5' 1" (shorter than Mary Sue), 147lbs., red-haired,
American, size 6 1/2 shoe, straight teeth, banking at Riggs NB Wash.
D.C., smoking Kents, was different from the 9 year older, 5' 7", 180
lb., gray-haired, Tornoto family, size 10 shoe, crooked lower teeth
and dropped left lower lip, banking in London, Canadian bacon sausage
eating, smoking Kool Kings man, was different from the 5' 11", 204
lb., size 11 1/2 shoe, Swiss with bulbous nose, missing teeth, banking
in Sweden and Liechtenstein were 3 different men each calling himself
"L. Ron Hubbard". Because:

a) not only did I have 3 feet away discussions with the 3,

b) _I had full medical/dossiers/bios issued to me by CIA Dick Allen
9/21/65 at St. Hill_,

c) I saw the 3 different signature cards supplied to me by the
Liechtenstein family (neighbors in Corpus Christy, Texas),

d) I was warned of the 3 by Carl Fish LRH Comm. Washington D.C. Dec.
10th, 1964,

e) I was informed of 3 Hubbards by Wayne Rohrer, Executive Director,
Fdn. Church of Scientology, Washington D.C. Dec. 8th, 1964

f) I was informed of 3 Hubbards by Nelson Rockfeller via Samuel
Fitzpatrick and Lonnie Glasscock II July, 1965,

h) I was informed of 3 Hubbards by Dr. Irma, Del Mar Chemistry 801,
"operation paper clip" top German chemist, and was candorous of the 3
Hubbards relation to disc remnant Nazi operations, July, 1962. , (Dr.
Irma's husband was head of the USSR rocket program.)

Their 3 businesses were (1) self evolution awareness enhancement, (2)
extortion and mind control of groups technologies for Travistock
Industries, Sussex, England, (3) witness nullification by terrorism,
electro-shock, psychological deprivation therapies, divided
personality disorder installation, abductee silencing, witness memory
erasure and rearranging lives of aspirants.

The signature I exhibit is that of the American who "disappeared
forever", 11:31 P.M. 12/23/65, his bodyguard [name deleted] becoming
mine that moment on until I was on an American plane back to America
3/5/66. As principal and agent I have tried somewhat to honor the
1950-1964 little American man, who predicted on 1950, 51, & 54 tapes
that when his teachings are inverted, one would know he "has been
murdered and replaced with imposters". His 1966 to present imposters
and I do not get along well and I do not appreciate them disgracing
the 1st Hubbard, ridiculing the courts in 6,000 cases and this country
for the past 35 years. I beg you get them to deny 3 physical Hubbards
under oath; Alexis, Diana, Mary Sue, Nibs, Arthur, Gillespie, Lacey,
Lerma, Hana and any of the many thousands of Scientologists, awe
struck with "such magical abilities". Said Mary Sue Hubbard should
have an appendicitis scar (2-66 a rough incision) with knowledge of
McMasters nick name for her and hers for him, the content of 10
messages to me via Quentin, and of her conversations with Dr.
Arrowsmith head of the English Department at the University of Texas.

If it is outside the scope of your authority to clarify my allegations
of 35 years of commercial and judicial malpractice, fraud and
deception by LRH, successors or assignees as my maximum request, if
you would grant or deny my minimum request I would be grateful.

I can proceed with either the gradual, cautious and tactful
publication of a science or complete the destruction of the 49/50th's
of said science that is in my possession by default. The RTC/BPI
predators never obtained more than 1/50th of the science, Your
decision impacts less than 70,000 people who are in wait for either
resolution, so at last closure can be achieved.

8. Further basis for my exemption, relief and exclusion as a principal
and agent successor is that in my efforts to separate church and state
while defending state from alien and foreign intervention, I was the
only Person of Record (at the time 1958-78) with elevated clandestine
ratings from church and US/UK, amidst a 5-cold-wars context. In this
twin subrogation I found myself discharged from active duty 23/8/68 as
"Geoffrey" US 54 718 067 and 23/8/72 as "Goeffrey" 465-66-0192 from a
reserve control group by a Brigadier General of a previous form of
this U.S. government placed me in the unique position of having to do
what was best for the country first.

I having been born to Constance Jane Buehl, or Suehl, or Fritze, or
Filbert and having to do what I was told by the U.S. government came
by birth because I was told as a Registered Person and she was told as
a Registered Person it was in the National Interest on government
programs to do what one was told. This was because her "Fritze" 1938
I.Q. scores were only exceeded by my 1958 scores for this century.

9. I've order forensics the 12th day of May on the LRH lectures, to
clear triplicate Hubbardry once and for all. The lecture analysis of
voice forensics on pronunciation, camber, pitch, breathing, laughs &
nasal sounds, orally, digitally and oscilloscope graphs make the
majority of the pre 1966 and all of the post 12/23/65 L. Ron Hubbard
lectures completely unmatchable. This is the preliminary report by
sound engineers. At $10,000. Per tape, no living Hubbards, no
originals, this $3 million in forensics is a 10th of the value of my
paintings they took from me (8/69), which should indicate my degree of
intent, interest and of property frictions.

10. The private contract basis of the "Hubbard Certified Auditor" quid
pro quo was, that I would get wet signature right to practice his art
for life in exchange for the FDA ban on his E-meters, being lifted, by
the U.S. Senate through my and my father's affiliates lobbying
efforts. When accomplished the Certificate was flown to England
(11/28/64) for signature.

11. The ability to abridge and nullify a private contract with wet
signature, which is forbidden in the body of the Constitution
(Ashwander vs Tennessee Valley Authority), where neither party finds
fault with the contra-party (signature LRH deceased 1965 and myself)
by a judicial order permanent injunction on a 3rd vs. 4th party
dispute is the simple question upon which I appeal to you for rule of
law. That would be the constitutional question that has to be decided.


Respectively appreciative of your attention to this matter I remain,


[Signed]
_____________________________
Geoffrey C. Filbert
Author _Excalibur Revisited_ 4/25/82
Hubbard Certified Auditor 12/14/64
US 54 718 067 DOD DOR 11/17/67

...and this from a pdf document called Tech Briefing by Caspar De Rijk:

The affidavit however contained some more interesting statements, he had known in 1964-1966 period three different L. Ron Hubbards, one was described as a red haired American, then there was a British Hubbard with some missing teeth and yet another one a size bigger with all kind of details like where they were banking and the brands of cigarettes they smoked etc. He said that the American Hubbard had disappeared on 31 December 1965 never to be seen or heard of. And Filbert said the other two were impostors.

So there you have it, folks, three separate L. Rons...each writing their own HCOBs and HCOPLs and that's the reason for the apparent inconsistencies...BUT if you can place the HCOB with the corresponding L. Ron it's been said that there ARE no inconsistencies!

Isn't that nifty?
 
Last edited:
Top