New Free Zone Website- let's try this again

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Since the previous thread got derailed, I'm reposting this.

I'm going to add that this site contains critical material- not just happy FZ stuff. There's Andre Tobayon's famous affidavit on there and there's a post by Aaron Saxton and something by Michael Pattinson.

So before anyone gets all freaked out that someone would actually post about an FZ website on the FZ section of ESMB, have a look at the link. There's a reason Terril called this "Brilliant". It wasn't just because it's FZ and he likes FZ. It's got a bit of a balance with some critical posts amidst the non CofS Scn ones. This is something one does not see on a lot of other sites of this type.

So here it is again:

Brilliant new Freezone Website.

http://freezone-tech.info/

This website is AMAZING! Incredibly comprehensive. It quotes one of
the most favorite success stories I ever posted, from a dear friend.

bb
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Since the previous thread got derailed, I'm reposting this.

I'm going to add that this site contains critical material- not just happy FZ stuff. There's Andre Tobayon's famous affidavit on there and there's a post by Aaron Saxton and something by Michael Pattinson.

So before anyone gets all freaked out that someone would actually post about an FZ website on the FZ section of ESMB, have a look at the link. There's a reason Terril called this "Brilliant". It wasn't just because it's FZ and he likes FZ. It's got a bit of a balance with some critical posts amidst the non CofS Scn ones. This is something one does not see on a lot of other sites of this type.

So here it is again:

Brilliant new Freezone Website.

http://freezone-tech.info/

This website is AMAZING! Incredibly comprehensive. It quotes one of
the most favorite success stories I ever posted, from a dear friend.

bb

Never explained adequately by any tech supporter than I've read is why things went so wrong for so many. "Wins" become subjectives floating in the wind against that hurricane of distressed souls. If people are wrong for "freaking out" about promotion of tech operations it is more understandable to me than "freaking out" over objections to same.
 
Never explained adequately by any tech supporter than I've read is why things went so wrong for so many.

Well here's my take:

Because, as a result of Hubbard's personal "need" to control the various organizations of scientology and most especially through the mechanism of his creation of the Sea Org, the purpose of helping others to personal gains through spiritual insight which was embodied within the fundamentals of scientology from the first were completely displaced by a preemptive concern to carry out "Ron's wishes", aka "command intention".

The truly sad thing about this mess is that so many bought into this tragic misdirection and agreed to make the church of scientology solely about "Ron", thus turning a fun spiritual movement into an abusive personality cult.


Mark A. Baker
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Well here's my take:

Because, as a result of Hubbard's personal "need" to control the various organizations of scientology and most especially through the mechanism of his creation of the Sea Org, the purpose of helping others to personal gains through spiritual insight which was embodied within the fundamentals of scientology from the first were completely displaced by a preemptive concern to carry out "Ron's wishes", aka "command intention".

The truly sad thing about this mess is that so many bought into this tragic misdirection and agreed to make the church of scientology solely about "Ron", thus turning a fun spiritual movement into an abusive personality cult.


Mark A. Baker

Thanks for the input. A fun spiritual movement does not and never will exist. That evidence is all around us, my opinion. The nature of the beast precludes that sort of operation. That Scientology is control comes out in auditing and training applications which mirror mankind's interests and is the reason Hubbard and all other secondary 'gurus" use their set of acceptable "stuff" instead of truth. None of this means they can't be something to approach and understand. But the reason for betrayed realities is useful to recognize.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Scientology was always "about Ron," and "Ron" was always "about Ron," even before "Scientology" existed - in the egomaniacal 1938 mission statement letter, in the 1946 'Affirmations', in the "appears mental" 1950s letters to the FBI, and on and on.

Adding "solely," as in "solely about," is weasel-wording. Scientology was always disguised, so there was always something else. There were always deceived and manipulated good people, in addition to "Ron."
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Never explained adequately by any tech supporter than I've read is why things went so wrong for so many. "Wins" become subjectives floating in the wind against that hurricane of distressed souls. If people are wrong for "freaking out" about promotion of tech operations it is more understandable to me than "freaking out" over objections to same.

I didn't say that people are wrong for feeling the way they feel or having reservations about Scn tech. I just think that Terril should not have been picked on for posting about the FZ in the FZ section of this board. I thought it sucked. I'd have done the same for a theistic Satanist- an ology/ism of which I tend to take a rather dim view.

Now, as to your question or opening comment- I do think wins are quite subjective but then again, this happens in/with other therapies including psychology based ones. I don't by any means think Hubbard got the whole thing down pat and had all the answers. But even if I thought he fucked up every which way to Sunday I would continue to passionately support the decision of those who wish to pursue his stuff, particularly when they are posting to a section of the board designed for such pursuits and expressions of same.

And, again, this site does have more of a balance with critical materials than one usually sees in FZ sites. I think that's worthy of mention.
 
Thanks for the input. A fun spiritual movement does not and never will exist. That evidence is all around us, my opinion.

The point is Nex, earlier in the church history a fun spiritual movement did exist. I'm sorry that you never had the chance to experience it.

I enjoyed the last struggling gasps of freedom which were still being made back at the end of the '70s. I had a great time back then at my local mission. The pattern of full control by the SO had already been set, however. Still it was not yet completely extended to the mission network, although that was shortly to follow.

Those I know, and have known, who were involved with the church earlier attest to the widespread joie de vivre that could be found among scientologists, especially during the '50s & '60s. They also attest that this spirit progressively died out as things became increasingly controlled and "serious", in tandem with exertion of control by the SO.

At the recent FZ Conference here in SoCal Mary Freeman was the hit of the conference with her recollections of scientology in the early '60s. The enthusiasm had the whole room regressed to being a pack of teenagers. Here on ESMB Carmelo Orchard has repeatedly remarked how experiencing scientology in the u.s. was lively and fun until the '70s when things started to become universally more serious and less fun. He left as a result of seeing the handwriting on the wall. Many of Alan Walter's remarks here on ESMB were in a similar vein. Other past leading lights of scientology whether currently freezone, critic or neutral have made similar observations.

As I said, I'm sorry that you never had the chance to experience the fun. However, I'll stand by my own observations and those of my friends. :)


Mark A. Baker
 

Veda

Sponsor
I had fun in Scientology. It was a secretive cult and I was very naive. Ignorance is bliss.

Here's a tiny sampling - or reminder - of the "good old days" - of 1965, the same year that the Fair Game Law, 'KSW' and the SP Doctrine were formulated: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/hate/pubs/hco-exec-ltr-1965-09-27amprinistics.html

However, it didn't start in 1965: http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=56340&postcount=808 http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=297586&postcount=129

"...the whole room regressed to being a pack of teenagers..."

Good Lord.

Naivete is not a virtue. Cluelessness is not an ability. Ignorance is not really bliss.
 
The point is Nex, earlier in the church history a fun spiritual movement did exist. I'm sorry that you never had the chance to experience it.

I enjoyed the last struggling gasps of freedom which were still being made back at the end of the '70s. I had a great time back then at my local mission. The pattern of full control by the SO had already been set, however. Still it was not yet completely extended to the mission network, although that was shortly to follow.

Those I know, and have known, who were involved with the church earlier attest to the widespread joie de vivre that could be found among scientologists, especially during the '50s & '60s. They also attest that this spirit progressively died out as things became increasingly controlled and "serious", in tandem with exertion of control by the SO.

At the recent FZ Conference here in SoCal Mary Freeman was the hit of the conference with her recollections of scientology in the early '60s. The enthusiasm had the whole room regressed to being a pack of teenagers. Here on ESMB Carmelo Orchard has repeatedly remarked how experiencing scientology in the u.s. was lively and fun until the '70s when things started to become universally more serious and less fun. He left as a result of seeing the handwriting on the wall. Many of Alan Walter's remarks here on ESMB were in a similar vein. Other past leading lights of scientology whether currently freezone, critic or neutral have made similar observations.

As I said, I'm sorry that you never had the chance to experience the fun. However, I'll stand by my own observations and those of my friends. :)


Mark A. Baker

Mark,
He's right. The sixties was filled with women, who wore long dresses to cover up (modestly) their unshaved legs and pubes. The guys all had BO and beer bellies. Sea Org dress whites required Mormon underwear. The Scientology rock and roll bands all had Frankie Yankovic as their hero. Everyone of the bands was famous for their accordion solos. Tan bodies and trips to the beach were grounds for golden rod. Bikini waxes, free beaches, and hot tubs filled with naked people were only for SPs.

Freedom was only achieved under the stalwart guidance of David Miscaviage.
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Note that the thread this one is supposed to be a solution to has got back on topic.

Should we derail this one now to keep things in balance?

Paul
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Pilot said much the same thing, Scn was very different once. According to his posts on ARS, people used to drop by at New York Org just to hang out at one time (the mid-60s). Amanda Ambrose played piano and sang. Leonard Cohen even wrote one of his songs "Bird on a Wire" there.

Even in the bad old days of the mid '80s I remember an impromptu disco at Plymouth Org, playing Michael Jackson's "Wanna Be Startin Something" on the org tape machine (until the ED showed up).
 

Veda

Sponsor
I don't believe that anyone "hung out" at the NY Org, except people who were regarded as pests. That wasn't the "vibe." It was busy. People were doing stuff. The work was more enjoyable than fun, and much more enjoyable then "hanging out."

Somewhere along the way there's a mental short circuit, which translates into "people hung out at the NY Org."

That would refer to an Org event, or occasional "Poetry by Candlelight," across the street, etc, after the Org closed for the day.

I hope this is not a trend: feeble minded Scientologists reminiscing.

If it is, put on your bell bottom pants and try to get your college roommate to read that copy of Dianetics you gave him. Oh wait a minute. It's not 1968 anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpYlEvWldEw&feature=related
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
The point is Nex, earlier in the church history a fun spiritual movement did exist. I'm sorry that you never had the chance to experience it.

I enjoyed the last struggling gasps of freedom which were still being made back at the end of the '70s. I had a great time back then at my local mission. The pattern of full control by the SO had already been set, however. Still it was not yet completely extended to the mission network, although that was shortly to follow.

Those I know, and have known, who were involved with the church earlier attest to the widespread joie de vivre that could be found among scientologists, especially during the '50s & '60s. They also attest that this spirit progressively died out as things became increasingly controlled and "serious", in tandem with exertion of control by the SO.

At the recent FZ Conference here in SoCal Mary Freeman was the hit of the conference with her recollections of scientology in the early '60s. The enthusiasm had the whole room regressed to being a pack of teenagers. Here on ESMB Carmelo Orchard has repeatedly remarked how experiencing scientology in the u.s. was lively and fun until the '70s when things started to become universally more serious and less fun. He left as a result of seeing the handwriting on the wall. Many of Alan Walter's remarks here on ESMB were in a similar vein. Other past leading lights of scientology whether currently freezone, critic or neutral have made similar observations.

As I said, I'm sorry that you never had the chance to experience the fun. However, I'll stand by my own observations and those of my friends. :)


Mark A. Baker

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But we have a different idea what constitutes a "movement'. Without referring to Scientology, a movement where individuals within geniunely move into and through understanding has not existed in the history of mankind. And in the case of Scientology I think the period of time you're talking about having fun is about as long as the existence of the Capone mob. So it didn't last very long. Of course neither did the mob.
 

dianaclass8

Silver Meritorious Patron
Since the previous thread got derailed, I'm reposting this.

I'm going to add that this site contains critical material- not just happy FZ stuff. There's Andre Tobayon's famous affidavit on there and there's a post by Aaron Saxton and something by Michael Pattinson.

So before anyone gets all freaked out that someone would actually post about an FZ website on the FZ section of ESMB, have a look at the link. There's a reason Terril called this "Brilliant". It wasn't just because it's FZ and he likes FZ. It's got a bit of a balance with some critical posts amidst the non CofS Scn ones. This is something one does not see on a lot of other sites of this type.

So here it is again:

Brilliant new Freezone Website.

http://freezone-tech.info/

This website is AMAZING! Incredibly comprehensive. It quotes one of
the most favorite success stories I ever posted, from a dear friend.

bb

Hi Claire:

Thank you very much for posting this. I think that it is a great website and it is well designed to inform people about Scientology and it helps them decide for themselves wether to stay or go.

I love the critics actually, but regarding this website they are doing and saying exactly what they hate it done on them.

Live and let live...paraaaaaa raaaammmmmm raaaaammmmm:happydance:

(Ominous sound like in the song):happydance:
 
Mark,
He's right. The sixties was filled with women, who wore long dresses to cover up (modestly) their unshaved legs and pubes.


I have very fond memories of girls wearing "granny" glasses & dresses. As to "pubes", they help to hold the flavor of the "juices", or so I've been told. :angel:


Mark A. Baker :whistling:
 

Terril park

Sponsor
I don't believe that anyone "hung out" at the NY Org, except people who were regarded as pests. That wasn't the "vibe." It was busy. People were doing stuff. The work was more enjoyable than fun, and much more enjoyable then "hanging out."

Somewhere along the way there's a mental short circuit, which translates into "people hung out at the NY Org."

That would refer to an Org event, or occasional "Poetry by Candlelight," across the street, etc, after the Org closed for the day.

I hope this is not a trend: feeble minded Scientologists reminiscing.

If it is, put on your bell bottom pants and try to get your college roommate to read that copy of Dianetics you gave him. Oh wait a minute. It's not 1968 anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpYlEvWldEw&feature=related

I was London org. I and others did " hang out" for fun.

You saying hanging out somewhere is feeble minded?
 

Veda

Sponsor
I was London org. I and others did " hang out" for fun.

In your case, I believe it. Did you stand around for hours in the lobby?

When I was in the Org, I was either training or auditing. I much preferred that to "hanging out." When I wasn't coaching others or auditing, I'd go home to the sea shore, where I had my 2,000 book library and green eyed red headed (non Scientologist) girlfriend and, there, pursue my other interests.

You saying hanging out somewhere is feeble minded?

Feeble minded might be a bit harsh, but "addled" doesn't quite say it either.
 
Top