My Freezone Story (?)

... 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.

And I think you are right. There is much within the subject of scientology that is practical & useful. You are also correct in your conclusions concerning the church; it is a cult and a dangerous one at that.

Nowadays what I recommend to most people is that a study of the subject should be based on a study of the alternate Clearbird materials. They do the best job of presenting the subject of scientology without giving in to the cultic iconization of hubbard. They are also available for free download on the internet, as per the above link.


Mark A. Baker
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
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

Good refs, Paul.

Thought you might be interested to know that sociopaths also have an IMPAIRED SENSE OF SMELL. (from recent research):

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201209/sociopaths-impaired-sense-smell

Perhaps this is why L Ron kept all scented things away from him? Just a thought --
 
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.)

People say my personality hasn't been affected as long as I'm taking my whore-moans (hormones), or that it's been affected for the better (I don't run to girls, girls run to me). It's more memory and attention (a good friend described them as f---ked). I won't take notice of what's in front of my nose for example :D and if you tell me something, expect me to forget in five minutes, then remember the next day.
 
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.

100% agreed. I used "fine" to mean acceptable, not perfect—"acceptable" was my initial impression. Well, if the man had such awful research skills, whatever. At least the philosophical tech is pretty good. I tend to use the tech simply to draw analogies off of. I'm a Scientologist in the same way I'm a Freudian—there are bits and pieces in the tech I like. Everyone is right sometimes, wrong sometimes.

IMO there's nothing wrong with telling someone, "Think of all your relationships as triangles. Build affinity, reality, or comm, and the other two sides will build themselves" or even, "You're not going to get anywhere staring at a wall of text. Do you know what the words even mean? If you do, make a model. Show me you understand." That's the extent of my Scn involvement.
 
Welcome. I'm impressed with the way you used the Greek "theta" character to spell "thetan." How'd you do that?

The ϑn notation was Hubbard's shorthand for it in his "Wall of Fire" [STRIKE]chicken scratch[/STRIKE] research. The way to do a lowercase ϑ on a Windows computer is [ALT/+] followed by 03D1.

I also occasionally write enϑ or nϑ (means the same, entheta).
 
And I think you are right. There is much within the subject of scientology that is practical & useful. You are also correct in your conclusions concerning the church; it is a cult and a dangerous one at that.

Nowadays what I recommend to most people is that a study of the subject should be based on a study of the alternate Clearbird materials. They do the best job of presenting the subject of scientology without giving in to the cultic iconization of hubbard. They are also available for free download on the internet, as per the above link.


Mark A. Baker

Unfortunately, a whole bunch of Clearbird materials are no longer available for download, because Cult of $cn lawyers managed to harass site owners into submission. I will try to mirror the Clearbird stuff and put it somewhere safe and public.
 
Unfortunately, a whole bunch of Clearbird materials are no longer available for download, because Cult of $cn lawyers managed to harass site owners into submission. I will try to mirror the Clearbird stuff and put it somewhere safe and public.

I f---ked up—the stuff wasn't mirrored correctly and there's a lot of broken links. Otherwise, the stuff is great. I plan to publish a book written in the spirit of Clearbird's "Study Manual", taking inspiration from it and Hubbard's original materials.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Unfortunately, a whole bunch of Clearbird materials are no longer available for download, because Cult of $cn lawyers managed to harass site owners into submission. I will try to mirror the Clearbird stuff and put it somewhere safe and public.

Huh? Be specific. I just looked and could find the usual stuff in the usual places.

What can't you find exactly? Or have those fearsome lawyers shuddered you into silence on the subject?

Paul
 

RogerB

Crusader
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

Nice, Paul . . .

That dissertation by Dr. Hare you linked: http://aftermath-surviving-psychopa...-to-spot-social-predators-before-they-attack/ is so LRH, Hare could have used the son-of-a-bitch as the model! :yes:

R
 

Tiger Lily

Gold Meritorious Patron
Honeywhite, the study tech is what hooked me too. I liked it, and even used it in my classroom when I was a teacher, with great success. Then I ran a past life incident in session which blew me away, and decided that since everything I'd learned from Hubbard so far was true, that the rest of it was probably true too.

That was the beginning of the end for me. I got snarled up in something that I was not equipped to handle and it spiraled my life out of control. There is so much in Scientology that is designed to trap your mind, mixed in with a few things that work to keep you interested. Yes, there is good there, but it's very difficult to pick the raisins out of the turds, especially as you get further into it where the proportion of raisins decreases markedly.

My best wins came within the first few months of my involvement in Scientology. After that it was busting my hiney trying to experience that same "high" again.

It looks like you are going into this with your eyes open. I hope it's a good experience for you, just hold to the "if it's not true for you it's not true" idea. Don't believe anything just because higher ups tell you it's true.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Honeywhite, the study tech is what hooked me too. I liked it, and even used it in my classroom when I was a teacher, with great success. Then I ran a past life incident in session which blew me away, and decided that since everything I'd learned from Hubbard so far was true, that the rest of it was probably true too.

That was also the big blunder that I made. I ASSUMED that since what I had done so far was so very good (mainly auditing, and not so much the Study Tech), that therefore the REST of it all MUST also be wonderful.

Linking the nice wins and experiences from specific aspects of the auditing and study tech to 1) Hubbard, 2) Scientology management, 3) Scientology organizational theories, and 4) so much OTHER Scientology "data" was a big error on my part.

It is sort funny, because Hubbard talks about how a "low-toned person", or "less than sane person" tends to IDENTIFY things with each other that are not really equal. Yet, Hubbard and Scientology take GREAT advantage of such A=A=A identity type thinking.

It was strict GO and OSA law that one is NEVER to talk about different aspects of Scientology, and examine them critically. I remember talking to an OSA staff member in the early 1980s, and mentioning that it was a simple FACT that the auditing "tech" was entirely a different thing than "management tech". he BLASTED me on the spot! WHAM!

"Where do you hear that?"

"Who told you that?"

"Who did you tell that to?"


This OSA goon was obviously trained to INSTANTLY ATTACK any such comments. Differentiation WITHIN Scientology itself is not tolerated and insrtances of such honest differentiation are heavily attacked.

This is just another of the endless stream of contradictions in Scientology. Hubbard teaches all about the value of differentiation, and how BAD it is for minds to misidentify dissimilar things and ideas. THAT is the basis of his "A=A=A" phrase. It is the lowly act of making things equal that are NOT equal. That idea, by the way, was stolen from General Semantics.

But then, in Scientology, one is heavily encouraged to EQUATE all aspects of Hubbard with your blow-out experiences, with your wins on course, with David Miscavige, with all of Scientology management, with Hubbard's music, with your recent ability to get and keep a job, with your heightened confront from doing TRs, and so forth.

In Scientology the necessary view is that IT IS ALL GREAT! Every bit of it. And focusing on any SPECIFIC PART of Scientology, and finding it NOT SO GOOD is entirely forbidden. So, it is part of the trap to ASSUME that because one small isolated part might be "good" that ALL the rest of it is GREAT! That is also a built-in apsect of what is called "bait 'n switch".

A=A=A, when it comes to the general and specific details of the subject of Scientology, within the Church of Scientology, is mandatory.

People who are honest and differentiate, and who talk about such things with others, critically and rationally, eventually get expelled, declared and segregated from all other extant Scientology true believers.
 

Div6

Crusader
<snip>
It was strict GO and OSA law that one is NEVER to talk about different aspects of Scientology, and examine them critically. I remember talking to an OSA staff member in the early 1980s, and mentioning that it was a simple FACT that the auditing "tech" was entirely a different thing than "management tech". he BLASTED me on the spot! WHAM!

"Where do you hear that?"

"Who told you that?"

"Who did you tell that to?"


This OSA goon was obviously trained to INSTANTLY ATTACK any such comments. Differentiation WITHIN Scientology itself is not tolerated and is examples of it are heavily attacked.
<snip>


Interesting....this reaction is the "rollback" tech...trying to trace enemy lines back to "source". No TR4, no comm cycle, just pure inval. The sad thing about it is that they were just treating you the way they were being treated. Their analytical minds had been removed, and they were ronbots for the win!......
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Interesting....this reaction is the "rollback" tech...trying to trace enemy lines back to "source". No TR4, no comm cycle, just pure inval. The sad thing about it is that they were just treating you the way they were being treated. Their analytical minds had been removed, and they were ronbots for the win!......

Yeah, that was the term they used - "enemy line".

Any view, concept, statement or angle that is critical of ANY aspect of Scientology or Hubbard (and now Miscavige) is labeled "enemy line". Of course, it doesn't matter at all whether it is TRUE. The assumption is that criticisms CANNOT "be true". It is a blanket assumption, and such an assumption is a thought-stopper.

When I was getting Sec Checked by OSA in about 1999, there were MANY questions having to do with ANY negative anythings regarding David Miscavige. The "List One" had been greatly modified with DM as a TOP BUTTON. Obviously the Church of Scientology had evolved into having a great concern for catching ANY instances of disregard for The (new) Fuhrer.
 
Honeywhite, the study tech is what hooked me too. I liked it, and even used it in my classroom when I was a teacher, with great success. ... Yes, there is good there, but it's very difficult to pick the raisins out of the turds, especially as you get further into it where the proportion of raisins decreases markedly. ... It looks like you are going into this with your eyes open. I hope it's a good experience for you, just hold to the "if it's not true for you it's not true" idea. Don't believe anything just because higher ups tell you it's true.

No higher-ups for me. Is this a self-help philosophy or what? All I do is read the material, do the checksheets, and then try to apply whatever I've learned, good or bad, to my life. I think I've learned more or less all I need from Scn anyway, now comes the time to apply it.
 
Huh? Be specific. I just looked and could find the usual stuff in the usual places.

What can't you find exactly? Or have those fearsome lawyers shuddered you into silence on the subject?

Paul

I can find all the materials, but I had a hard time *downloading* them for offline use; the note on the site stated that "due to Cult of $ lawyers making unreasonable demands, we've had to stop offering this material for download". However, I actually found the URL with a little digging, and found that the actual file didn't disappear.
 
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.

What's an org? (Just kidding.) Organised Scn is not for me, thank you very much. I have my own shrink, I don't really need auditors at the moment. What I do need is a way to find order in chaos, a way to retain information, and a way to make decisions. In view of this, I turned to Scn, and have found that it has helped me in those three ways. If I had ten words to give someone for a better life, I'd tell them: "AFFINITY REALITY COMMUNICATION is UNDERSTANDING. FIND STABLE DATUM. USE DICTIONARIES." In that simple way, Hubbard's works saved my mind. I'm in a rather unique situation and have problems being productive because of it. Now that I've discovered how to have fun by myself, I'm perfectly fine.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I can find all the materials, but I had a hard time *downloading* them for offline use; the note on the site stated that "due to Cult of $ lawyers making unreasonable demands, we've had to stop offering this material for download". However, I actually found the URL with a little digging, and found that the actual file didn't disappear.

Oh, you poor thing. It took me ten seconds to start downloading Clearbird's stuff. I Googled "clearbird download," took the first hit, clicked on the link, and the zip file started downloading.

http://www.freezoneearth.org/downloads/files.html

Did I do something wrong?

Paul
 
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

Ahh, except you were using S.T. to study Scn. If, say, I taught the finer points of law to newbies, would they begin to see a gradual 'suck' for more law? I *hope* so! ;-)
 

Veda

Sponsor
Ahh, you did something RIGHT. I used the Freezone America mirror. http://www.freezoneamerica.org/downloads/files.html

Judging from the above link, which includes more than just Clearbird, you have now entered the land of vast Hubbardian significance, the Hubbardian labyrinth.


At first glance, it appears that "Clear," in Clearbird, is the end result, as in "We're done." Yet it seems to be a lead-in to something else, bait-and-switch-style.

Note, towards the bottom of the first link below, that Clearbird leads to the Advanced Ability levels (With a Clear depicted, sitting at a table, with an e-meter, a dark cloud labelled "case" hovering over his head): http://www.freezoneearth.org/Clearbird/Clearbird2004/index.htm

http://www.freezoneearth.org/Prometheus04/files/gradechartCB.htm

http://www.freezoneearth.org/Prometheus04/powerR6/power/adv_levelsCB.htm

Once you're "Clear" you're, ominously, "at risk."

"Anyone who is Clear but not OT III had better be pushed up to OT 3 first because otherwise he is at risk." 'HCOB' 23 Dec 1971.

I like the Clearbird material. However, Clearbird and Prometheus Reports do seem to have a symbiotic relationship.

This is from the author of the Clearbird materials, under 'KSW and Clearbird':

"We respect Ron's tech for what it is, a complete system that has been tested and adjusted, re-tested and adjusted again, and now existed more or less in its final form for over 30 years." http://the-scientologist.com/clearbird.shtml

And that "complete system" does not end at "Clear."

Of course, one can pretty much do whatever one wants with almost anything, but it does seem that the Clearbird materials were (are) meant as introductory (lead in) to the rest of Scientology, rather than a statement that Scientology (meaning, in this case, Scientology counseling) is only valid up to "Clear."

Which explains why there's no "warning label" attached.

I still like Clearbird :), but, as with Scientology, there does seem to be something lurking behind the Clearbird curtain too. Apparently, to the author of Clearbird, it's just Ron's smiling face.

Note: The author of Clearbird, last time I looked, was working on some variation of "AGPM" (Actual Goal Problem Mass) procedures. Hubbard abandoned this area of Scientology in the early 1960s. Faithfully, he still seems to believe that Hubbard must have stumbled across the secret to it all, if only it can be found in his sea of words.
 
Top