Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
Were you aware of the fact that years ago on a.r.s., DM used to be described as "the poodle"?
So if that were the case, wouldn't the danger be a prion/brain type thing? Depends on how deep the bite...
iScientology.org - A new home for Independent Scientology?
- Thread starter OperatingSP
- Start date
Were you aware of the fact that years ago on a.r.s., DM used to be described as "the poodle"?
So if that were the case, wouldn't the danger be a prion/brain type thing? Depends on how deep the bite...
Free Being Me
Crusader
My post was completely satire posed in a faux letter. It wasn't meant to be theta, simply mocking the contradictory nature of P.R. campaigns claiming who has the real, better life destructive tech.
As to R2-45, you first.
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
(*) I remember too. And cancelpoodle and cancelbunny. Haven't been to ars or act for a while, though.
Paul
Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
You're not missing anything. They used to be le dernier cri, 'specially ars, but times change.
Someone once emailed me a pic of DM as poodle and I asked him, "is it a standard poodle?"
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Ten million Scientologists, Clears & OTs.
One SP (COB).
Who is more cause?
Do the math.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Hubbard couldn't manage to make a marriage work, but he can juggle planets! Right . . . . .
Well, it could be said that planets do tend towards a measure of long term stability & reliability.
Mark A. Baker
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
--snip--
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!
Personally, I do not believe in salvaging this sector. That is an unreal target, because. . .
Unless we take responsibility for the entire Galaxy, not just this sector, we are all doomed. Ron talks about that. I don't want to give you verbal data, which is why (instead) I am writing this post.
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
..
Anyways, WTF is wrong with "Verbal Data"?
Anyways, WTF is wrong with "Verbal Data"?
POLICEMAN
All the people inside were burned to death.
Why didn't you tell them the building was on fire?
SCIENTOLOGIST
I didn't want to give them verbal data.
All the people inside were burned to death.
Why didn't you tell them the building was on fire?
SCIENTOLOGIST
I didn't want to give them verbal data.
Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
Well, the "tech" answer would be that the person might get it wrong then all this squirrelling would happen.
But it's also a KSW thing where Hubbard set himself up to be supreme dictator.
It got so ridiculous. Course supvs who truly wanted to help their students were often hamstrung.
But it's also a KSW thing where Hubbard set himself up to be supreme dictator.
It got so ridiculous. Course supvs who truly wanted to help their students were often hamstrung.
Xenu's Boyfriend
Silver Meritorious Patron
Claire, with all due respect, I disagree with this, because I feel like if Scientology were a true religion (in other words, completely free) then yes, people could believe whatever crazy nonsense they wanted, like you can hear Satan tempting you when you pour milk into a bowl of Rice Krispies and it might not matter.
My feeling, and Free Being touches on this, is that the minute Scientology starts charging for their religion, talking about bridge, OT levels, and what should be able to be achieved at those levels, we are talking about a product with expectations. I'm trying to imagine having to pay a price for Catholic confessions or Buddhist meditation, being told you're stuck in your salvation at the moment because your credit card was declined. Could you put a second mortgage on your home so that you can get right with God? Didn't we learn anything from the selling of indulgences during the Protestant Reformation. Again, I'm still completely clear with independent Scientology - is auditing free?
For me, the question still remains, how do you sell a product (Bridge to Freedom, OT levels) without proving the product works, and not just for someone here and there, but consistently enough to advertise? There was just a lawsuit recently about woman's mascara - the product claimed to lengthen lashes, and it just wasn't true. If we can do that with cosmetics, how does Scientology get away with it?
It's not enough to say people can believe what they want. With that argument, people who "believed" in Bernie Madoff's pyramid scheme should have had no recourse... Scientology is a similar kind of rip off. Too bad Bernie wasn't able to create a religion concerning his banking practices in time. He might have gotten off.
Last edited:
Xenu's Boyfriend
Silver Meritorious Patron
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.
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!
I think this is a great point - and I'd like to add, I've listened to the interviews where Steve Hall talks about COB kicking his ass at one of the meetings, like he did Mike Rinder, and Marty Rathbun, and Jeff Hawkins, and others. They always talk about how crazy DM is, but I never hear them link his behavior to the Scientology tech itself. Yes, DM may apply it in a way that seems cruel and excessive, but, again, he didn't "create" the RPF, he just took it to a whole new level. The idea of destroying someone who disagrees with you in the name of "clearing the planet" is strict Hubbard.
I feel sometimes that if the Independent Scientologists like these men who continue to promote Hubbard as a genius, were to face the fact that violence and coercion is part of the tech itself, they would face a level of despair and depression that would be absolutely profound and possible psychologically destabilizing. Because then they would have to deal with all the cruelty and evil that they have participated in (I'm talking about Rathbun and Rinder now) not in the name of David Miscavige, but in the service of L. Ron Hubbard. Just the smile/laugh Rinder gives in the interview where he is asked about Lisa McPherson shows what the "tech" can do to a person's ability to empathize, and again, that can't be blamed on DM.
There is a beautiful moment in the Jason Beghe video if you watch the longer 2 hour version, it's about a half hour in, where he is talking about past lives in Scientology, and how (I hope I am remembering this correctly) someone said that he did so well at the beginning because he was probably "clear" many, many lifetimes ago. The only problem is that this is pretty much impossible as LRH only created the state of "clear" ONE lifetime ago.
Beghe has to take a "I can't believe I fell for this shit" moment, and actually acknowledges that there are point when he remembers his experience where the clarity of the depth of the scam, the betrayal, really becomes clear, and you almost have to pause, like it could potentially overwhelm you - like, how did I give part of my life and soul to this crap and what do I have to show for it now? ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOTHING. And it's not just falling for a scam, it's falling for it again and again, spending more and more money to fix what wasn't broken in the first place. This is the grief that I think Rinder and Rathbun would like to avoid, but I see it much more clearly on Rinder's face. I still feel "Rathbun" hasn't had his "come to Jesus" moment.
Last edited:
Xenu's Boyfriend
Silver Meritorious Patron
Claire,
I don't mean to keep going after you, and I don't feel angry anymore...Still you make a certain point over and over and I feel the need to refute it.
Perhaps I should, before "attacking", ask you a question, and then listen. With the Independent Scientologists that you know - how do they feel about psychiatry? Do they still believe in Sec Checks? Do they believe in the Bridge to Freedom, and how do they feel about people outside the church? What about Suppressive People? Do they still exist?
I should probably just let it go, but it does feel a little bit like the chicken or the egg, and I feel I am trying to understand your argument:
When you say there are some people who are are fucked up, basically I'm hearing, "There are lots of kids in the third grade. Some kids are friendly, some kids bully and are mean."
Now in this statement, we see there are two kinds of kids, but we basically can agree the experience of being in the third grade isn't fucked up in and of itself. It takes a bad kid to potentially make it so.
So, in other words, you're saying that Scientology, in and of itself isn't problematic. If you get a bad egg, like DM, it can be made that way, but otherwise, the experience of Scientology can be completely neutral. Is that what you are saying?
Because this may be the fundamental difference that I've been trying to understand. And do believe this is the argument and voice of the IS movement, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
I do not consider responding to or disagreeing with my posts to be "attacking". Anyone who claims I do is greatly mistaken or lying.
They can be found in all flavors. I actually know some who not only don't mind psychiatric meds and treatments but who even take psychiatric drugs.
When I was an Indie, I didn't care. I'd broken off with CofS and was coming to my own conclusions.
Sec Checks are part of Grade II. "Gang bang sec checks"- not used.
Most non CofS Scn'ists I know think that an SP is basically a sociopath but they don't worry that much about it.
,
Why? Is this not a discussion board?
Cool.
No, I'm saying that being a non CofS Scn'ist is no guarantee that the person's gonna be a bodhisattva or truly enlightened being and that they get the same mix of sinners and saints as do other venues.
No, I'm not saying that and I don't ever say that. I've written many posts saying Scn has many problematic teachings in it, not just stuff DM is doing. I've often said that's why I'd not want a "church 2.0" as one very nice lady phrased it the other day and I felt that way when I was an Indie and said it then, too.
I just think it's more easily managed outside CofS. And I think I'd know given my past and present situations.
No.
That would be nice to find someone who didn't want to do that.
Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
I don't really care if anyone considers it a religion or not. Some people I know use it more as a self help thing. It varies from person to person. I've got no emotional or other investment in that.
That being said, I'd say that not all religions are "completely free". But in any event, doesn't matter because I was not making any point about it being or not being a religion.
On ARS, some of us used to say "is it a floor wax or a dessert topping?"- referring, o course, to Scn's propensity for attempting to be all things to all people. Was pretty funny!
It's really a hodgepodge of things. Hubbard borrowed/appropriated and sometimes stole various things from various places. Sometimes admitting it, sometimes (re the Crowley stuff) not doing so at all. A person could treat it as a self help thing, they even could treat it like an occult exercise. They could treat it as unacademic/unofficial pop psychology. And for some, it's their religion. Some guy who just does some COHA auditing on his own isn't paying for nuttin'. But that doesn't make it a religion. But doesn't make it not a religion either. I think it really depends on that person and how he or she practices it. Not what you or I may say about it.
I've not asked John Da Wonderhusband if he considers it a religion as far as he's concerned. I bring him up because, hey, I live with an Indie. What a wonderful opportunity to treat him like a bug under a microscope. Hey, could be rad. (of course, since he's the youngest of 5 children, he has a hide like a rhino anyway. He won't care, really.)
Some is. I've had free auditing back when I was doing the indie thing. And if someone were to do the COHA processes on their own- which Petal is doing and has written about here on ESMB- they are getting free auditing. Similarly, if they are studying it on their own or get a free course- both of which I've seen happen, then it's free.
That being said, though, I do not consider it to be a criterion. I just finished reading "Does this Church Make me Look Fat?" by the same lady who wrote "Mennonite in a little black dress" (which I also read) where she rhapsodizes about tithing then changing it to a pre tax base- so it's even more- then, hey, let's donate some more. I also remember my Dad grumbling that we only heard from the Dioceses's bishop when he wanted money. Of course, one could point out that a person is not obligated to tithe or give money to the Diocesan Development Fund, but then again, lots o free services in the FZ.
But that does not make it a religion. Doesn't make it not a religion. It's just not a criterion. Or if it were, then I would say it would have to be part of a set of criteria.
In fact, I'll go so far as to say that if you had a Catholic or a Buddhist or whatever, and they didn't cough up one thin dime and they prayed, meditated, did all that- but for reasons of their own did not consider it to be a religion, why, then, for them it wouldn't be. Because it's in the eye of the beholder.
But again, I don't have a dog in that particular fight. I think maybe you believe I do, but such is not the case, I assure you.
Anybody prove The Assumption? Transubstantiation?
But, really, anyone who believes Scn is in the realm of the theoretical not only has my blessing but also my agreement.
I do not have a dog in that fight. I do not care if it's valid. I do not claim it's valid. In fact, there's stuff in there I am quite positive is invalid. So if you're wanting to talk to someone in a discussion or debate who believes in and wishes to argue Scn's validity, you've come to the wrong person.
Perhaps Reed Slatkin would have been a better subject of your analogy, if you're wantin' to bring Ponzi schemes up...
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Actually this is the wrong discussion board.
Even among those members of this board, myself included, who do find value in the tech of scientology, none of us are in the least ways "purists". Those individuals who speak out in defense of aspects of scientology tech members on the board are most definitely NOT apologists for all things hubbard.
Those who are frequent other haunts. There have been individuals who have stopped by for a brief time over the years, but they are routinely met with a hostile reception from the more vociferous critics. Invariably they decide they don't need the abuse and take off for greener pastures. More's the pity.
Mark A. Baker
OperatingSP
Patron with Honors
One point of clarification, and I might be demonstrating my own ignorance.
My understanding is that, while the distinction has as a practical matter largely been lost within the corporate Church of Scientology:
Confessional =/= Sec Check
While Grade II contains Confessionals, it does not contain Sec Checks.
Therefore, Independent Scientology could deliver Grade II containing Confessionals without having Sec Checks.
Am I incorrect?
I'll also note in passing that one thing Marty posted on his blog that impressed me was that he did not write down any of the PCs overts during Confessionals. That he made a conscious decision that there was not a written record of overts. I also seem to recall him saying that he didn't care whether people thought that was Standard Tech or not.
Anonycat
Crusader
I think a "confessional" is a stolen word they use to call a PC folder in the press. A Sec Check is in layman's terms, an interrogation. So, your Sec Check documents can end up in your PC folder, and then someone could call the entire lot a "confessional" to prevent anyone from seeing it. They may also claim they own it, and not even you have a right to it.
Similar threads
