Justice Committee, Constitution & Membership of IS Not-For-Profit Membership Org

Re: CommunicatorIC addresses the new IS group on the "wog" issue.

i didn't discover the origin of "wog" until after i was in. it is an acronym of "worthy oriental gentleman" by the way which requires irony to be disparaging

and the cited quote is a good example of benign usage. here's a person who left CoS who is clearly disappointed with the bland mundane tepid WOGGYASSED WOGGILY FUKKIN' WOGS and their bland insipid lifeless nadaville somnambulism but doesn't have the balls to drop a hundred and fifty mikes of LSD and get themselves a real 12 and a 1/2 hour OT intensive for a decent price

(if any children are passing through, LSD is DANGEROUS! don't use it)

sorry...

i misspelled WOGGILY...

[edited]

oh...

no i didn't. funny, i went to bed thinking i'd only put one G in WOGGILY
 
Last edited:

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Re: New IS Not-For-Profit Membership Community REJECTS use of the word "wog"

oh no...

don't tell me this new IS group is going to be politically correct?
Actually, assuming he was being sincere, Steve Hall explained his reasons for rejecting the use of the term "wog":
Yes, you are totally right. The word should not have been used because it has been used consistently by many as a pejorative term. And the fact is, we don't need it. I never use the term myself. Times have changed. Thanks for speaking up. I edited it out of the original comment.

Condescending attitudes, pejorative terms and arrogance have no part in any philosophy. Why? Because it defeats the very idea of "philosophy" which means love of wisdom.
Either that, or he decided that the best way to get his new group off the ground was not for them to sound like a bunch of condescending piece of shit assholes who were suffering from pathetic and possibly clinical delusions of grandeur.

i'll say it again straight on up, that usage of "wog" is just fine with me...
Good to know.
 
Re: CommunicatorIC addresses the new IS group on the "wog" issue.

I didn't mention the word "wog" in my post at all. But since you did . . . .

What I was referring to was the way SO MANY Scientologists assumed an air of superiority while denigrating "wog justice", "wog education", "wog ethics", "wog governments", "wog administration", "wog religions", and on and on. Hubbard pretty much pisses on every aspect of modern society, always implying that HIS brilliant spewing were better, more accurate, and just RIGHT. Simply, to me, Hubbard was a pompous ass, and many of his followers manifested (mimicked, dramatized) the same lame character traits.

I don't think what I said was hypercritical at all. I saw the elitist attitude all around me with Scientologists - frequently. It was common and not at all restrained or hidden (at least not among the usual gung-ho true believers).

For example, I would hear Scientologists who had NO education in science (which I did) talk as if they knew more than REAL scientists because LRH claimed that he figured out the very BASIS of what lies behind the very laws of Nature. Or, to hear some semi-educated Scientologist rail on about the flaws of philosophy, simply parroting what Hubbard said about "those who never get out and live life, and only study ideas in closed ivory towers".

o yeah, you were in the "elite" sea org, "le creme de la creme" as it was first introduced to me...

there is an esprit de corps in the SO that is not thoroughly ignoble but, yes, it can come off like a flea floating downstream lying on it's back on a leaf with a hard un yelling "raise the drawbridge!"

it's been a long time GF, but thinking back i was put off by most of the common complaints about CoS from the first and the thing about "wogs" was one them. i was n san francisco and here was this fantstically gorgeous city spilling over with the best of what homo sapiens can be and do nd it was all done by fukkin' wogs f'crissakes so if you ain't built something better whuffo you wanna piss on wogs?
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Re: CommunicatorIC addresses the new IS group on the "wog" issue.

it's been a long time GF, but thinking back i was put off by most of the common complaints about CoS from the first and the thing about "wogs" was one them. i was n san francisco and here was this fantstically gorgeous city spilling over with the best of what homo sapiens can be and do nd it was all done by fukkin' wogs f'crissakes so if you ain't built something better whuffo you wanna piss on wogs?
Good point, but to be fair one must also consider the list of Scientologists who have won the Nobel Prize.
 
Last edited:

uncover

Gold Meritorious Patron
.


Important note to self:

Never waste your time by joining a group which is led by dumped long-time Sea-Org members.
 

Queenmab321

Patron Meritorious
Re: CommunicatorIC addresses the new IS group on the "wog" issue.

Good point, but to be fair one must also consider the list of Scientologists who have won the Nobel Prize.

Or, for that matter, the number of non-wogs who've actually managed to reach outer space (key word, "actually"), stand on the moon, map neighboring planets or land rovers on Mars.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
One of scientology's specialties is labeling. Every scientologist trains at it almost from Day One. It's a required skill. You're supposed to be able to remove the label and accurately see what is actually there but many scientologists lose this ability over time.

Non-judgement is not part of the scientology indoctrination.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Re: CommunicatorIC addresses the new IS group on the "wog" issue.

Good point, but to be fair one must also consider the list of Scientologists who have won the Nobel Prize.

Perhaps you may wish to research this more fully. There are more followers of Jedi than scientologists.

How many of them have won a nobel prize?
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Re: New IS Not-For-Profit Membership Community REJECTS use of the word "wog"

Actually, assuming he was being sincere, Steve Hall explained his reasons for rejecting the use of the term "wog":Either that, or he decided that the best way to get his new group off the ground was not for them to sound like a bunch of condescending piece of shit assholes who were suffering from pathetic and possibly clinical delusions of grandeur.

Good to know.

Never trust a Scientologist. NEVER! Why?

Because he or she will happily apply LRH's PR Series and manipulative ARC tech, happily LIE, and make reality appear to be just about anything, all to achieve some goal or purpose.

Of course, maybe, and this is BIG "maybe", maybe these folks have tossed out all standard usage of the PR Series to "mold opinions & beliefs".

Will ANY sort of hard-core Scientologist actually ever communicate sincerely to you? Instead of trying to "handle you" with the appropriate "tech"?

Not if their idea of standard includes using and applying Hubbard's PR "tech".
 

Gib

Crusader
One of scientology's specialties is labeling. Every scientologist trains at it almost from Day One. It's a required skill. You're supposed to be able to remove the label and accurately see what is actually there but many scientologists lose this ability over time.

Non-judgement is not part of the scientology indoctrination.

for awhile there, I wished people in the orgs worn nametags like "grade 0" comp, "OT5", "OEC/FEBC Trained". LOL

As a public too.

I got tired of asking what grade or level of training they were. Of course, the EO's didn't need to wear badges, it was like when the lights were turned on and all the cockroaches fled the room, or everybody got real busy with do nothing work, asses & elbows yah know what I mean..
 

Gib

Crusader
Re: New IS Not-For-Profit Membership Community REJECTS use of the word "wog"

Never trust a Scientologist. NEVER! Why?

Because he or she will happily apply LRH's PR Series and manipulative ARC tech, happily LIE, and make reality appear to be just about anything, all to achieve some goal or purpose.

Of course, maybe, and this is BIG "maybe", maybe these folks have tossed out all standard usage of the PR Series to "mold opinions & beliefs".

Will ANY sort of hard-core Scientologist actually ever communicate sincerely to you?
Instead of trying to "handle you" with the appropriate "tech"?

Not if their idea of standard includes using and applying Hubbard's PR "tech".

It's funny you mention what you wrote.

I was reading this tread today:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?25802-quot-Old-Timers-quot-and-OT-Phenomenon

And within it, this http://exscn.net/content/view/69/98/

And this applies, the subject of "confront", which is what scientologists do, when you think about it.

"Now I’ll better (possibly) explain that. It’s a technical thing. Literally to confront means to “front with” [See appendix 1]. Now Ron in all his life only fronted with things. In fact your training drill [is] called confronting. He called it confronting. And I think Ron only ever knew how to confront people. He always fronted with a subject, he never experienced it.
I can confront people. I can front with things and I can experience. When you’re experiencing you’re not fronting with anything. You’re knowing them, you’re experiencing them and its quite different from confronting. Ron evidently didn’t do that. Ron, in all his personal dealings with people, he always confronted them.

He used to confront them when he was talking to them and he was listening to them. Whatever was happening Ron always was confronting. And that was the fren---s [?], it was a mock-up. A glowing mock-up you might say he used to put there to confront people with. That’s what you used to sense when he walked into a room. It was the confront, the thing he fronting with.
When I first spoke to Ann about this she almost had a line charge, she had a tremendous cognition. She’d spotted it but she didn’t quite understand it. She said: “Yes, right, its exactly right isn’t it. That’s exactly what he does.”

 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Re: CommunicatorIC addresses the new IS group on the "wog" issue.

Perhaps you may wish to research this more fully. There are more followers of Jedi than scientologists.

How many of them have won a nobel prize?
Perhaps you may wish to differentiate.

The Jedi "religion" started out as a bit of fan fun and, to the extent it has substantive content it (unlike Scientology) has only moral and ethical content.

Unlike Scientology, the Jedi "religion" does not promise to substantially raise IQ, provide people with OT superpowers, or create Homo Novis. Indeed, unlike Scientology, the Founder of the "religion" did not claim to have already substantially raised IQ, provided people with OT superpowers, or created Homo Novis.

In other words, the creator of the Jedi "religion" was not a lying sack of shit who led people to believe, and indeed promised, that he would create Nobel Laureates. You know, by now, more than 50 years after the creation of his IQ raising, OT superpower endowing, Homo Novis "religion."

EDITED TO ADD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_religion

Jediism became known following the Jedi census phenomenon in 2001 and the preceding email campaign to put "Jedi" as an answer to the census religion classification question.
23-year-old Daniel Jones founded the "International Church of Jediism" with his brother Barney in 2008, believing that the 2001 UK census recognized Jediism as a religion, and that there were "more Jedi than Scientologists in Britain".
The first Church of Scientology was incorporated in 1953. Scientology has produced no Nobel Laureates.

Jeiism was apparently recognized around 2001, and the International Church of Jediism was founded in 2008.

What, you expect to see Jedi Nobel Laureates who are five years old? Jedi Nobel Laureates who are twelve years old?

The Force may be strong, but I doubt it is that strong.

.
 
Last edited:

Queenmab321

Patron Meritorious
Re: New IS Not-For-Profit Membership Community REJECTS use of the word "wog"

It's funny you mention what you wrote.

I was reading this tread today:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?25802-quot-Old-Timers-quot-and-OT-Phenomenon

And within it, this http://exscn.net/content/view/69/98/

And this applies, the subject of "confront", which is what scientologists do, when you think about it.

"Now I’ll better (possibly) explain that. It’s a technical thing. Literally to confront means to “front with” [See appendix 1]. Now Ron in all his life only fronted with things. In fact your training drill [is] called confronting. He called it confronting. And I think Ron only ever knew how to confront people. He always fronted with a subject, he never experienced it.
I can confront people. I can front with things and I can experience. When you’re experiencing you’re not fronting with anything. You’re knowing them, you’re experiencing them and its quite different from confronting. Ron evidently didn’t do that. Ron, in all his personal dealings with people, he always confronted them.

He used to confront them when he was talking to them and he was listening to them. Whatever was happening Ron always was confronting. And that was the fren---s [?], it was a mock-up. A glowing mock-up you might say he used to put there to confront people with. That’s what you used to sense when he walked into a room. It was the confront, the thing he fronting with.
When I first spoke to Ann about this she almost had a line charge, she had a tremendous cognition. She’d spotted it but she didn’t quite understand it. She said: “Yes, right, its exactly right isn’t it. That’s exactly what he does.”


It's interesting. I've been thinking about this idea of confront lately. I'm in law school, and the style of teaching is the Socratic method. One prepares for class, briefs the assigned cases, reads the relevant statutes, legal principle, etc., and then, once in class, the professor may call on you. You're expected/taught not only to be able to articulate the issues involved in the case, but also to confront the professor. It's ultimately all preparation for litigation. You're being taught to confront an adversary on the spot with a coherent and compelling argument. The professor may intentionally essay a specious argument or assertion. This is a test. You have to be able to identify the error and call him on it. So, this idea of confront lies at the very heart of the curriculum.
 
Last edited:

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
..

Wog? Hell, own it . . .

Gerry_Armstrong.jpg
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
It's no more or less inane than any other example of fundamentalist religion. Most conservative Protestant churches maintain a set of doctrines (sometimes tacitly, more often codified) based on a self contradictory set of ancient, "infallible" documents they call Holy Scripture, a canon, moreover, that was itself established by, you guessed it, a council. Milestone Two is just another Church. The Amish practice disconnection (shunning) and if I'm not mistaken, so do Jehovah's Witnesses, so also did the early Christians.

"I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

I Corinthians 5:9-13

well the Thugs practice ritual murder and the Assassins drug induced murder - should scientology adopt those as well?
 
Re: CommunicatorIC addresses the new IS group on the "wog" issue.

Good point, but to be fair one must also consider the list of Scientologists who have won the Nobel Prize.

the complete list of italian war heroes from WWII is longer

but speaking of alfred nobel...

nitroglycerine was too touchy to be practical until he mixed it with fuller's earth and made a fortune off of dynamite

the way in which i combine scientology and christianity is much the same as this formula
 
One of scientology's specialties is labeling. Every scientologist trains at it almost from Day One. It's a required skill. You're supposed to be able to remove the label and accurately see what is actually there but many scientologists lose this ability over time.

Non-judgement is not part of the scientology indoctrination.

yes pandy...

labeling

in the master game de ropp points out a common human flaw is our tendency to attempt to think with a part of the mind not designed for thinking but for labeling

it's a ubiquitous phenomenon and in truth it is more glaring in CoS precisely because the philosophy is directed at pulling us out of A=A=A thought
 

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
well actually i'm just another jiveass honkie muthuhfukkah

but i was tenth cavalry in the army; BUFFALO SOLDIER!!!

so i have been known to say "don't nigga me nigga 'cause i'm a nigga myself"

and get away with it...

There are words I use myself which I consider I can get away with because I am one of those.

Having said that, I believe it's fundamentally wrong to discriminate or prejudge anyone because of the type of body they have. This is a non-negotiable for me.

Helena
 
Top