My Freezone Story (?)

Here's the story of my experiments with Scn. My name is Ted; I'm 20 years old, and I'm a student and entrepreneur. For the entirety of my short life, I felt that Scn was bunko, bullshit, a fraud, a cult, what have you. However, a few things happened to me that changed my beliefs about Scn.

One day, I expressed my problems with learning and retaining information to a friend. I have a traumatic brain injury that has worsened my memory, and in addition to this, I have always had problems with boredom in regards to subjects which were "easy" or "tedious" in my estimation. He told me to go look up Hubbard's student hat course. I did, but was disappointed to learn that this excellent course came from the creator of Scn, an organisation I despise and a religion I find nonsensical.

For those that don't know the Scn way of learning, you get a piece of paper with textbook references and exercises written on it, which you're supposed to tick off as you go along. The "textbook" for this particular course was the complete works of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, which I proceeded to download. I printed out and stapled the pages which were relevant to the study course, and proceeded down the checksheet. I was done in a couple of days, and immediately noticed improvements.

I figured, what the hell, maybe others can get some use out of this. I taught my colleagues the same course, taking care not to mention the name of the author (one L. Ron Hubbard) or the philosophy he devised, and I noticed big wins from many people that learned. Impressed, I wrote a book based on the Hubbard Method, and am prepared to get it published.

I learned about the ARC triangle too. I found that this also helped me. In fact, looking through the HCOB's, I found so much great information, written in LRH's awesome, funny stream-of-consciousness style. I mean, if you cut out the stuff about auditing, the space opera, and all the religious stuff, you end up having a perfectly workable self-help philosophy, written in a way that even a small child would understand.

I still think the Church of Scn is a cult, especially reading all of its practices. I think that the cultism started in the late 70's, when Hubbard began to have health problems, Mi$cavige became leader ($uppre$$ive ba$tard!) and the general spirit of experimentation, self-help, and making the world better was perverted into making Mi$cavige richer.

Sure, Hubbard wasn't perfect; I think he'd acknowledge that himself. I think everyone makes mistakes. Maybe I'm wrong about auditing, ϑns, implants, whatever. But on the whole, I think he was a fine fellow. Mi$cavige, though, is 100% $uppre$$ive.

I'm a Christian. But Scientology, when done like this, isn't a religion. Even auditing isn't really a religious thing, although the CofM maintains that it is. Sure, the CofM may QUALIFY, in the eyes of the law, as a religion, but it really isn't. It's simply a field of study, a mixture of psychology and philosophy. So I can freely say, I think, that I'm a Christian, and that I'm proud to be a non-denominational Scn'ist.

I mean, there is nothing religious about how to learn. There is nothing religious about the definition of understanding. There is nothing religious about the urge to survive in eight different ways. So why does the CofM insist that this is religion?

What do you guys think? Am I helping myself with Hubbard's material? Or am I just brainwashed, as David Touretzky insists? Touretzky is so dead set against Study Tech, just because it was taken from Scn... I think he's being way too extreme.
 

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Welcome. Thanks for coming to ESMB!

:party::party::party::party:

The study materials do help. Do your homework about L Ron Hubbard and Scientology - read the posts here - it is a dangerous cult and may destroy your life. Stay away from the Organization at all costs!
 

onthepes

Patron with Honors
yes i reckon the Study Tech helps. But there is a certain irony there. I read in a recent thread that a couple designed and researched the Study Tech for approximately 30 years to make it what it was. They told LRH it was all ready to go. The next night, in the mid 60s, he announced Study Tech as his own, basically breaking the hearts of the couple who designed it. So if you like Study Tech, as I do, that is great, but it is not LRH.
 

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
yes i reckon the Study Tech helps. But there is a certain irony there. I read in a recent thread that a couple designed and researched the Study Tech for approximately 30 years to make it what it was. They told LRH it was all ready to go. The next night, in the mid 60s, he announced Study Tech as his own, basically breaking the hearts of the couple who designed it. So if you like Study Tech, as I do, that is great, but it is not LRH.


L Ron Hubbard was soooooo Oatee that he lived 25,000 lifetime's in 1 :whistling:

His best attribute was RON THE CON! Liar Con Hubbard
 

R6Basic

Patron Meritorious
Welcome Honeywhite!

Your playing the game of "What part of the 'Tech' works. What is good and what can be thrown out." Following Bruce Lee's advice "Adsorb what is useful."

The problem is there is a LOT of material to try to sift through concerning Scn. 3,000 taped lectures alone, a full set of Tech books and eight volumes of 'Admin' books. then there are the basic books.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Scientology has good bits and so-so bits and bad bits. The trouble is that it is very hard to discover which is good and which is bad. I like to think I have a fairly good grasp of the differences, but I started in Scn 40 years ago.

Study Tech has good bits and so-so bits and bad bits. I've written extensively on ESMB and elsewhere about it.

Stay away from the cult or you're toast. The FZ isn't quite as bad, as long as you don't believe anything you're told by someone who thinks Scientology is good.

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Stay away from the cult or you're toast. The FZ isn't quite as bad, as long as you don't believe anything you're told by someone who thinks Scientology is good.

I should have said: Stay away from the cult or you're toast. The FZ isn't as bad, but don't believe anything you're told by someone who thinks Scientology is good without independent evidence.

Plus, there is another problem. Just because a person calls himself a Scientologist, that doesn't mean he embraces everything put out in the name of Hubbard. He might have cherry-picked out 10% of the technical bits and have discarded 90% of the technical bits and almost all of the admin bits, and still think he's a Scientologist and call himself one.

Paul
 

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
I mean, there is nothing religious about how to learn. There is nothing religious about the definition of understanding. There is nothing religious about the urge to survive in eight different ways. So why does the CofM insist that this is religion?
In my oh-so-humble opinion, what makes a religion is not belief in God or rituals and ceremonies, but an attempt to answer "the great questions" -- like where did the universe come from and what happens to us when we die.

Mi$cavige, though, is 100% $uppre$$ive.
On that we are in total agreement.

Helena
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
yes i reckon the Study Tech helps. But there is a certain irony there. I read in a recent thread that a couple designed and researched the Study Tech for approximately 30 years to make it what it was. They told LRH it was all ready to go. The next night, in the mid 60s, he announced Study Tech as his own, basically breaking the hearts of the couple who designed it. So if you like Study Tech, as I do, that is great, but it is not LRH.

THIS
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Mi$cavige, though, is 100% $uppre$$ive.

Actually, no, he isn't.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder, . . . The prevalence of this disorder is 3% in males and 1% from females. . . .. I assume Hubbard got his figure of 2 1/2% from standard textbook sources and not from independent "research" (ho ho). His 12 characteristics of such people, on the other hand, do not match at all the standard textbook characteristics, the only one in common (last time I checked and posted on ESMB) being a lack of remorse.

I thought psychopaths and anti-social personalities were the same, but just discovered five minutes ago they are not. Whoops. Anyway, there is a list of characteristics at that link above, and another list for the psychopath at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy. There is also a great article from the famous Dr. Robert D. Hare at http://aftermath-surviving-psychopa...-to-spot-social-predators-before-they-attack/ on how to spot a psychopath in normal life.

The Dwarf fits those characteristics of a psychopath very well, but who knows if he does things like "chooses the incorrect target" or "fails to complete a cycle of action" or similar bits of fluff.

Paul
 
Welcome Honeywhite!

Your playing the game of "What part of the 'Tech' works. What is good and what can be thrown out." Following Bruce Lee's advice "Adsorb what is useful."

The problem is there is a LOT of material to try to sift through concerning Scn. 3,000 taped lectures alone, a full set of Tech books and eight volumes of 'Admin' books. then there are the basic books.

In my estimation, this can be thrown out:
- Space opera
- Implants
- Body ϑns
- Touch assists

The rest is potentially useful. How to learn, KRC/ARC triangles, Eight Dynamics, that WORKS (although Study Tech may be plagiarised, still works, and 8D reeks of Maslow), and even Dianetics may be somewhat useful. I haven't tried it out, so I can't speak as to its efficacy. The rest works. I think ARC may even be a Hubbard original, although I know that there is nothing new under the sun.

I wouldn't touch the Church of Mi$cavige with a thirty-foot pole, and I wouldn't piss on Mi$cavige him$elf if he was on fire (I'd laugh gleefully, knowing that the $upre$$ive ba$tard was going to rot in hell, and maybe the Church would become a little less evil).
 
Actually, no, he isn't.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder, . . . The prevalence of this disorder is 3% in males and 1% from females. . . .. I assume Hubbard got his figure of 2 1/2% from standard textbook sources and not from independent "research" (ho ho). His 12 characteristics of such people, on the other hand, do not match at all the standard textbook characteristics, the only one in common (last time I checked and posted on ESMB) being a lack of remorse.

I thought psychopaths and anti-social personalities were the same, but just discovered five minutes ago they are not. Whoops. Anyway, there is a list of characteristics at that link above, and another list for the psychopath at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy. There is also a great article from the famous Dr. Robert D. Hare at http://aftermath-surviving-psychopa...-to-spot-social-predators-before-they-attack/ on how to spot a psychopath in normal life.

The Dwarf fits those characteristics of a psychopath very well, but who knows if he does things like "chooses the incorrect target" or "fails to complete a cycle of action" or similar bits of fluff.

Paul

I used the term suppressive loosely. To me, suppressive means someone who is unethical, who lies, steals, cheats, and physically abuses people. Psychopaths, like all people, can be good or bad people at heart (if they had one, that is); I myself fit many of the characteristics of psychopathy, but I definitely consider myself a good, ethical person. Sure, I wouldn't cry at my mum's funeral, and I wouldn't know love if it went and hit me very hard in the nose, but still.

Someone who runs a quasi-religious organisation with the sole purpose of separating people from their money is, in my dictionary, suppressive. It doesn't matter if they're anxious, depressed, psychopathic, narcissistic, or homosexual; if you run a church with the intent of robbing people, you are evil, simple as that.
 

Etrawl

Patron
Several psychological techniques that Hubbard claimed were his were actually developed by the Marcab scientists, some were developed by the Earth psychiatrists. He lied about many things, including this one.
 

pineapple

Silver Meritorious Patron
Welcome. I'm impressed with the way you used the Greek "theta" character to spell "thetan." How'd you do that?

I think you have the right attitude toward C of S. Stay away.

I've been out over 30 years. The tech wasn't why I got out. Much of that is good. I'm only referring to the lower half of scn's "bridge," cos that's all I personally experienced.

The problem with C of S IMO is the overblown, wildly exaggerated claims and the messianic, millenial attitude. They tell you they are "man's only hope" and "the only way out of the trap." They believe they are saving the world -- or perhaps even this sector of the galaxy. If you swallow that, almost anything can be justified. And of course it's worth any amount of money because your salvation -- and that of every man, woman and child on this planet, for countless millenia to come -- depends on scn.

Although the tech is not all bad, LRH was not "a fine fellow." He was a megalomaniacal con artist and his motivation was money and power, not helping people. Much of the tech of scn comes from other sources than LRH. LRH more and more over time obscured these other sources and eliminated those who worked with him or for him on the tech and took the credit for himself, making himself the "sole source."

I speak from experience, and there are many on this board who have far more experience than me who will tell you the same. Many had far worse experiences with scn than I did and are far more negative about it. It's okay to use things from scn that you find useful, but watch your step.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Here's the story of my experiments with Scn. My name is Ted; I'm 20 years old, and I'm a student and entrepreneur. For the entirety of my short life, I felt that Scn was bunko, bullshit, a fraud, a cult, what have you. However, a few things happened to me that changed my beliefs about Scn.

One day, I expressed my problems with learning and retaining information to a friend. I have a traumatic brain injury that has worsened my memory, and in addition to this, I have always had problems with boredom in regards to subjects which were "easy" or "tedious" in my estimation. He told me to go look up Hubbard's student hat course. I did, but was disappointed to learn that this excellent course came from the creator of Scn, an organisation I despise and a religion I find nonsensical.

For those that don't know the Scn way of learning, you get a piece of paper with textbook references and exercises written on it, which you're supposed to tick off as you go along. The "textbook" for this particular course was the complete works of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, which I proceeded to download. I printed out and stapled the pages which were relevant to the study course, and proceeded down the checksheet. I was done in a couple of days, and immediately noticed improvements.

I figured, what the hell, maybe others can get some use out of this. I taught my colleagues the same course, taking care not to mention the name of the author (one L. Ron Hubbard) or the philosophy he devised, and I noticed big wins from many people that learned. Impressed, I wrote a book based on the Hubbard Method, and am prepared to get it published.

I learned about the ARC triangle too. I found that this also helped me. In fact, looking through the HCOB's, I found so much great information, written in LRH's awesome, funny stream-of-consciousness style. I mean, if you cut out the stuff about auditing, the space opera, and all the religious stuff, you end up having a perfectly workable self-help philosophy, written in a way that even a small child would understand.

I still think the Church of Scn is a cult, especially reading all of its practices. I think that the cultism started in the late 70's, when Hubbard began to have health problems, Mi$cavige became leader ($uppre$$ive ba$tard!) and the general spirit of experimentation, self-help, and making the world better was perverted into making Mi$cavige richer.

Sure, Hubbard wasn't perfect; I think he'd acknowledge that himself. I think everyone makes mistakes. Maybe I'm wrong about auditing, ϑns, implants, whatever. But on the whole, I think he was a fine fellow. Mi$cavige, though, is 100% $uppre$$ive.

I'm a Christian. But Scientology, when done like this, isn't a religion. Even auditing isn't really a religious thing, although the CofM maintains that it is. Sure, the CofM may QUALIFY, in the eyes of the law, as a religion, but it really isn't. It's simply a field of study, a mixture of psychology and philosophy. So I can freely say, I think, that I'm a Christian, and that I'm proud to be a non-denominational Scn'ist.

I mean, there is nothing religious about how to learn. There is nothing religious about the definition of understanding. There is nothing religious about the urge to survive in eight different ways. So why does the CofM insist that this is religion?

What do you guys think? Am I helping myself with Hubbard's material? Or am I just brainwashed, as David Touretzky insists? Touretzky is so dead set against Study Tech, just because it was taken from Scn... I think he's being way too extreme.

Dave's actually a really nice guy.

But it may be that, coming from Academia as he does, that he may think you could be limiting yourself too much.

As far as the other stuff goes, if it's not a religion for you, then it isn't one.
 

phenomanon

Canyon
I've done all their stuff. Up one side, down the other, and all in-between.

What I liked best about Study Tech is the use of checksheets, using a demo kit, I loved clay demo but not many others liked it, looking up words in the Dictionary.
The parts that I dislike are the inevitable leading of the student to conclusion re Scn, its' ability to steer a sudent's considerations in a direction not of the student's own. IOW, the brainwashing aspect.
These considerations seem to creep into a student's wordview without his noticing them. Only on the NOTs level do some of these considerations put there by others come into view. And then, only if Nots is re-done in a non-Scn environment where it is safe to examine the origin of the consideration.
Be very careful. You will begin to see a gradual 'suck' for more Scn.

phenomanon
 

Dave B.

Maximus Ultimus Mostimus
Welcome.

One thing I'd like to point out about the FREEZONE. If you are going to be a consumer of their product you may want to examine their course packs and see if they have Keeping $cientology Working bulletins in them. If these people are using course packs that have KSW issues in them...

Then what is it that separates them from the corporate "church"?

Do they believe that Hubbard was the sole source of the tech?

If you read here on ESMB there are reports that Hubbard was not the sole source and indeed usurped the work of others. Many of them firsthand reports.

Much of what people think is Scientology was the work of others. Most of it.

If a FREEZONE org is using KSW #1 which is blatant Hubbard lies I'd be suspicious of them.

Are they blind? Lazy? Don't care to know the truth? Seems at odds with one of the supposed goals of Scn. - to know the truth.

There are alternatives to FREEZONE Scn. that in my opinion are superior. You can find out all about them on ESMB.

cheers.
 

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
Honeywhite said:
What do you guys think? Am I helping myself with Hubbard's material? Or am I just brainwashed, as David Touretzky insists? Touretzky is so dead set against Study Tech, just because it was taken from Scn... I think he's being way too extreme.

First, :welcome: young newbie Honeywhite (gotta say that's one of the stranger nics I've encountered lol, I should talk :p )

Kk, on topic; Let me address the quote above line by line from my own point of view.
"What do you guys think?" ~ Hm, I think you are on the verge of either learning a whole bunch about cults (and Hubbard in particular), or sliding into the 'its not so bad really' line of thinking; the latter path has a greasy pond through which one walks before entering into the rabbit's labyrinth created by the coniving madman known as LRon.
I think its good that you came here to ask such questions, there could be something that someone says that will shock you into more reasoned directions.
I have no good opinions about LRH after much, much research and reading, it boils down to cherry-picking stuff out of reams of verbal waste, where none of the usable parts are either origional nor ground-breaking.

"Am I helping myself with Hubbard's material?" Simply? No. Its just plain common sense and the old windbag stole ideas from many places and claimed much for himself as creator. In fact, it is my opinion that any contact with Hubbard materials on any subject, without knowing more of the history involved, should be treated as toxic exposure.

" Or am I just brainwashed, as David Touretzky insists?" You may or may not be :shrug:
And Dr. D.T. suggests no such thing pertaining to your particular case as presented here on this forum. You would be doing yourself a favour to read some of his academic (peer reviewed) work and some of the equally good works of his students, put on the ol' 'critical thinking cap' so to speak.

"Touretzky is so dead set against Study Tech,just because it was taken from Scn." Um.... no. Go read some more and try and grok a bit more.

"I think he's being way too extreme." That's your perogative.
You have obviously merely skimmed over some parts of his work and jumped to a conclusion that the facts do not bear out given the depth and research that has gone into his take on things.
Maybe we'll get lucky and he has a moment to spare to comment on this subject himself ;) He is a nice guy and fairly approachable too, so you may also consider writing to him yourself (via his university e-mail) of your concerns and questions~ I highly suggest you do some of your own research first (if you're allowed), and keep in mind that the papers and disertations he wrote on the cult were done a while ago and probably not in his current realm of interests.

:cheers:
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
I'll just say I worked with TBI patients for 3 years during college and as a population they were very susceptible to religious conversions and pyramid/MCM scams. Most had not been religious or interests in MLM "biz opportunities" before their injury.

It was a combination of factors that led to this but the bigs ones were a marked decrease in critical thinking, frontal lobe damage caused big problems with judgement, a big desire to be a part of a community or have a group of "instant friends." (Most TBI causes radical changes in personality and that can result in losing many pre-injury friends, so there is a big need to meet new people or make new friends that won't compare you to the person you were before the injury.)
 
Top