What's new

Non CofS Scientology

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
There are a couple of problems with this.

First of all, while I am happy to support -- and defend -- everyone's right to their beliefs, I don't agree with the idea that all beliefs are equally plausible or useful or that beliefs that are demonstrably inconsistent with reality should be immune to criticism.

Sure. I don't belief beliefs are or should be immune to criticism. Never did. But I do find that some criticisms are better or more logical than others. But then again, I think some beliefs are better or more logical than others.


Xenu and Body Thetans are as likely to be true as Russell's Teapot. Literal
transubstantiation is probably in the same category but that belief doesn't have
the other problem with Scientology beliefs -- L. Ron Hubbard.


While you are free to find Scientology beliefs useful, much of it has to be
taken on Hubbard's authority, and I can think of no religious leader (possibly
other than Smith) who had such a well-documented history of lying. Taking
something on faith because Hubbard said it seems particularly
untenable.

Well, I don't really have an emotional or ideological investment vis a vis Scn beliefs. Some others may- I don't.

Such beliefs as I do have- whether they are based on anything I learned in Scn or from anywhere else- are definitely not ones that I'm taking on faith because anyone said it.

As far as friends I have- or my husband- who are Indies- they're not so big on taking stuff on faith, either. They feel they've observed and tried out certain things. In fact, a bunch of friends and I - in another venue (private)- are discussing whether the hell auditing even did anything for any of us. It's a discussion I kicked off. Interestingly, many of the candid and occasionally scathing remarks about auditing are coming from people who still like Scn.


The second problem is the "floor polish / dessert topping duality" --
Scientology is either a "religion" or a "science" depending on the context. Some
Scientology beliefs are actually factual assertions and therefore should be
assessed as such in the same way that one can assess the factual accuracy of the
claim that the Earth is 6000 years old.

I think Hubbard wanted to make it all things to all people. I assume that it wasn't so much from a standpoint of asserting universal truth as wanting to get lots and lots of converts. So if you couldn't get them interested one way, there could be another way. The more converts, the better.


One of the issues here is that Marty and co are trying to rehabilitate
Hubbard and Scientology while saying they won't practice the "bad stuff" without
ever really saying what that means.

Well, Marty's far from the only non CofS Scn'ist, but yes, I do agree with what you say here.

As I mentioned in the thread op, figuring out which things should be ditched is not an easy proposition. (unless one happens to be...well, me!) Seriously, though, I think things like fair game, having an RPF, having billion year contracts, having freeloader debts-- all things in Hubbard's policies- are pretty obvious. But for all I know, you could get someone who thought maybe one of those things would be ok to a limited extent. My position is that none of those things is ever ok, of course.

I know a lot of good gentle people who are just doing their own thing, ideologically speaking. They're not following Marty or anyone else. They aren't doing anyone any harm. I don't care how much people like some of the ones on the iscientology thread say otherwise- they're wrong and they're behaving just like the morons in OSA.

Christian splinter groups are almost always happy to publicise exactly
where they disagree with the group they have split off (and their beliefs in
general). This makes it easier to criticize -- or not to criticize -- them on
specific points.

I wouldn't lay blame for Marty's vagueness on every single non CofS Scn'ist. My husband, for example, would tell you point blank exactly what he does and doesn't agree with. So would a lot of people I know. And some of them- like Mark Baker- have done just that here. So has Terril. And, when I was an Indie, I did so. But some critics just don't want to hear it. They have cognitive dissonance. So when they see a Free Zoner or Indie writing a critique of Hubbard or of some bit of Scn, they breeze right by it. It's not what they are expecting to see, so they don't really see it. I remember writing something pretty damn critical only to have the person say that I was writing a '"nothing to see here folks" post. And another person, upon seeing a post I wrote that was pretty scathing about emeters- just unloaded on me about Scn. These people are, allegedly, critics. This wasn't some OSA bot all upset about criticism of the cult.

So I honestly think that some people just cannot see it. I've seen non CofS Scn'ists say time and time again that Hubbard did write the policies that DM runs on. Yet, in the same venues, people who very likely had seen those posts claim again and again that non CofS Scn'ists all think that DM is the problem and that Hubbard didn't do anything wrong.

I've heard some very good critiques of Scn outside CofS which were written by non CofS Scn'ists.


With the Martyologists, the logical tactical response is to continue to bring
up the real problems with 100% Hubbard Scientology. People who aren't
Martyologists but defend (often also unspecified) aspects of the tech are likely
to be met with the same response for the same reason.

The independent scene has been around 30 years. I think some people just see what they want to see. And I think there's some scapegoating that goes on, too.

I honestly don't see any difference between someone like Gwen Mayfield Barnard- the Portland OSAbot who was sent to handle me along with Ann Ruble Pearce (DSA/Seattle) or Gavinno Idda and, say, some of the people who scapegoat and complain about non CofS Scn'ists.

Now, notice I say "scapegoat and complain". I am not calling all criticism of Scn (in or outside CofS) "Scapegoating and complaining". Because it's not. Not innately, also not all points made or posts written are scapegoating. Whether I agree with them or not, I do not in any way think that the act of criticizing indie Scn is scapegoating. But some of it is. And those particular critiques are, thus, invalid.

I don't see that complaint about using Scientology terms but about using them
as if they were unambiguously defined and represented established concepts.

It's on that iscientology thread. Mark used a couple terms and people were acting like he'd cooked and eaten a baby. Biiiig overreaction.

The 1984 description of "doublespeak" is a very apt description of
Scientology language, as were the comments on "word laundering".

I think the Scn terminology certainly became doublespeak and/or word laundering. I tend not to believe it started out that way. But it certainly is that way now.

You can use Scientology words all you want but I don't think you can assume that you are meaningfully communicating when you do so.

I rarely use them unless I'm discussing a Scn concept. Same with a lot of others I know.

Sorry, equating criticism of Scientology with racism is pure hyperbole.
Particularly since most of the criticism is of factual assertions rather than
intangible beliefs.

I do not equate criticism of Scn with racism. Never have, never did, never will.

But there are posts which slam non CofS Scn'ists that are the same as racism. I believe the word would actually be"chauvinism"- though that has come to connote as "Male chauvinism"- but chauvinism can be nationalist, sexist, racist, ageist, culturist, you name it.

Am I a "bigot" for criticizing astrology or alchemy?

I have never said or thought criticism of Scn (or anything else) constitutes bigotry. It can be but it isn't intrinsically such.

Criticism can be done in a bigoted way or in an unbigoted way.
 
Concerning Marty, though he isn't the only Indi, and there are others who have sites up, his is the stepping off point for the true believers and their defensive doubt formulas. They are made safe to step off the grid, and how exactly does he accomplish that?

By being the nut job, DM is evil, Ron is good, in your face, fund raising for Debby types, camera-hat goon magnet, and writer of those Can Scientology Be Saved books. By saying Hubbard's tech is still the route out, he makes it safe for the lurkers to breach, like a whale breaking through the surface of the tentacles of the cult.

If he were to adopt the general viewpoint expressed on this blog, how long would he last? How fast would the doubt formulas dry up if he called Ron Hubturd?

He has to wear that mantle as much as the pope has to wear the mitre. Love him of hate him - he is the face of indi Scientology.

Mimsey
 

Veda

Sponsor
Concerning Marty, though he isn't the only Indi, and there are others who have sites up, his is the stepping off point for the true believers and their defensive doubt formulas. They are made safe to step off the grid, and how exactly does he accomplish that?

By being the nut job, DM is evil, Ron is good, in your face, fund raising for Debby types, camera-hat goon magnet, and writer of those Can Scientology Be Saved books. By saying Hubbard's tech is still the route out, he makes it safe for the lurkers to breach, like a whale breaking through the surface of the tentacles of the cult.

If he were to adopt the general viewpoint expressed on this blog, how long would he last? How fast would the doubt formulas dry up if he called Ron Hubturd?

He has to wear that mantle as much as the pope has to wear the mitre. Love him of hate him - he is the face of indi Scientology.

Mimsey

On the face of it that sounds good.

However, people have been leaving Scientology since Scientology began.

Rathbun isn't just providing another place to "do the Bridge," he's informally training others to be the equivalent of Scientology Intelligence-Public Relations Officers, equipping them with variations of old CofS PR lines and ploys adapted to the age of the Internet. In other words, he's teaching others how to successfully lie on behalf of L. Ron Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology.

That's much more than simply encouraging others to leave the CofS. That's an additional step which, along with his attempted "handlings" (or "re-handlings") of exes, and attempted "handlings" of never-were-Scientologists ("wogs" or "Homo Saps" as his spiritual leader called them), speaks of Rathbun's (apparently self-assigned) "mission."
 

Goodbye

Patron with Honors
I think the distrust most people have for Marty is probably correct. Time will tell, but he probably does want to have a new revamped CofS, a coup, with himself at the head.
Personally I'm not the faintest bit interested in any support, reform or attack against CO$, it's a non-issue to me, Rathbun merely attention and tabloid fodder, even entertaining at times. You might want to consider defining for "yourself" if, or what you like out of Scientology. No FZ messiah is going to do that for you.

I think people have the right to feel that way about Scn just as people have the right to be racist or not racist or anything else. Because it's freedom of speech. And it's also freedom of speech for people to say they want to study Scn outside CofS or, in my case, to say they think others who want to have the right to.
Freedom of religion means you can believe whatever you like.

I think just about everyone here knows - that any organized CofS is never going to be anything but abusive.
The lot of any monopoly on this order.

Cheers... :study:
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
On the face of it that sounds good.

However, people have been leaving Scientology since Scientology began.

<snip...>
This is true, people have always left scientology but, AFAIK, never this publicly.

In the last few years we've seen a whole bunch of widely distributed announcements to that effect from some key (as in; 'perceived as important') scientologists. Many of those announcements were made on Marty's Blog.

God Bless the internet!
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Must be embarrassing to be in the Cof$ these days, knowing that the whole world are laughing at you, Tom Cruise a figure of fun, Travolta and the gay stuff, shortage of staff, no recruiting, no money coming in, people leaving in droves. Yeah, it's all going down the tubes. Take OSA for example - I mean. they stick out like a sore thumb, don't they?

[video=google;-5464625623984168940]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5464625623984168940[/video]
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Probably not. If you're in the CofS you probably don't really perceive the actual nature of such things. If scientologists (OSA or not) see them at all, they simply interpret such demeaning attacks as "evidence of scientology's continued expansion"... it's weird I know. :duh:
 

John McGhee

Patron
Indy scientology, freezone scientology , what are they except methadone, a copout. And like the aforementioned drug, you will have to come off of that some day too. Just because they are too ashamed to admit how fucking stupid and gullible they were in the first place, to swallow hubbard's muck. Wake up!!! you bloody idiots, the last thing a person needs upon exiting scientology, is more scientology! I am yet to meet an indy who can actually tell me how they use scientology in their everyday lives. Fools!
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Indy scientology, freezone scientology , what are they except methadone, a copout. And like the aforementioned drug, you will have to come off of that some day too. Just because they are too ashamed to admit how fucking stupid and gullible they were in the first place, to swallow hubbard's muck. Wake up!!! you bloody idiots, the last thing a person needs upon exiting scientology, is more scientology! I am yet to meet an indy who can actually tell me how they use scientology in their everyday lives. Fools!
Lol, they're possibly reluctant to tell you, John.
I wonder why that might be? :hysterical:

As to the prior commentary; does it matter what path addicts take as long as they get off the 'hard stuff' eventually? I know that you have a different opinion but I personally think it's a mistake to lump all forms of scientological practice together. That's just my opinion. :)
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Lol, they're possibly reluctant to tell you, John.
I wonder why that might be? :hysterical:

As to the prior commentary; does it matter what path addicts take as long as they get off the 'hard stuff' eventually? I know that you have a different opinion but I personally think it's a mistake to lump all forms of scientological practice together. That's just my opinion. :)

Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion, of course. Your point about the 'hard stuff' raises other issues, though. For example, Methadone is a drug commonly used to get addicts off Heroin and Morphine, but a significant number of authorities assert that Methadone is actually more addictive than the drugs it is substituting for.

What is the 'hard stuff' you mention here?

What is it that Marty is supplying in place of the 'hard stuff' you are referring to?

What makes it better than what the Cof$ supplies?




 

Veda

Sponsor
This is true, people have always left scientology but, AFAIK, never this publicly.

In the last few years we've seen a whole bunch of widely distributed announcements to that effect from some key (as in; 'perceived as important') scientologists. Many of those announcements were made on Marty's Blog.

God Bless the internet!

Most of what occurred earlier was before the Internet, but there were plenty of public announcements. Plenty of communication and activity.

There were several large break-away groups, and their participants were not secret. Some had newsletters. There was also the old 'Free Spirit' magazine.

There were plenty of telephones and photocopy machines, and plenty of gatherings.

From this time also came Armstrong vs the CofS, and three books that interviewed former top Scientologists who had worked closely with Hubbard.

Also exposed were the documents resulting from the issuing of search warrants on Scientology locations in LA and Wash DC in 1977 and made available by court order in 1979. Over the next few years these materials became available, notably in the above mentioned books.

One difference is that Marty&friends are L. Ron Hubbard fan(atics), where as most of the others had outgrown that.

Another difference is that Marty&Friends are using old CofS PR lines and other dishonest and manipulative approaches to "handle" their targeted "publics."

I'm glad Marty is there. I just wish he would stop bullshitting and manipulating on behalf of L. Ron Hubbard and Hubbard's Scientology.

It's possible to get people out of Scientology honestly and without BSing.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion, of course. Your point about the 'hard stuff' raises other issues, though. For example, Methadone is a drug commonly used to get addicts off Heroin and Morphine, but a significant number of authorities assert that Methadone is actually more addictive than the drugs it is substituting for.

What is the 'hard stuff' you mention here?

What is it that Marty is supplying in place of the 'hard stuff' you are referring to?

What makes it better than what the Cof$ supplies?
Firstly, I think the Scientology:Heroin analogy is a flawed analogy. Arguing it as if it's a valid analogy seems kinda silly to me. The thing I refer to as "the Hard Stuff" is the Fundamentalist/KSW#1/Everything-means-exactly-what-He-said-it-means type of scientological Belief. If you're stuck in that mindset, you're stuck.

I hold no brief for Marty or his Blog and only read it when someone I know announces their exit there or someone here links to an interesting snippet. I have no idea what Marty is supplying at all.

One person I know went to Marty for some kind of clean-up on his prior CofS auditing and told me that the auditing he received from Marty was the best he'd had. I take him at his word. That's all I actually know about what Marty does. I have no evidence that his auditing is better (if auditing happens to be the thing which you desire, of course) but imagine, having experienced the many facets of the CofS auditing environment, that it probably can't help but be more beneficial than anything you're likely to experience in the CofS.
 
Last edited:

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Most of what occurred earlier was before the Internet, but there were plenty of public announcements. Plenty of communication and activity.

There were several large break-away groups, and their participants were not secret. Some had newsletters. There was also the old 'Free Spirit' magazine.

There were plenty of telephones and photocopy machines, and plenty of gatherings.

From this time also came Armstrong vs the CofS, and three books that interviewed former top Scientologists who had worked closely with Hubbard.

Also exposed were the documents resulting from the issuing of search warrants on Scientology locations in LA and Wash DC in 1977 and made available by court order in 1979. Over the next few years these materials became available, notably in the above mentioned books.

One difference is that Marty&friends are L. Ron Hubbard fan(atics), where as most of the others had outgrown that.

Another difference is that Marty&Friends are using old CofS PR lines and other dishonest and manipulative approaches to "handle" their targeted "publics."

I'm glad Marty is there. I just wish he would stop bullshitting and manipulating on behalf of L. Ron Hubbard and Hubbard's Scientology.

It's possible to get people out of Scientology honestly and without BSing.
Yes, I understand and agree.

My commentary simply means that I don't think that still-in scientologists (back then) were anywhere near as aware of those things as still-in scientologists (now) seem to be about the current generation of Blogging "dissidents". I give credit where credit is due.
Thank God for the internet! :)
 
Last edited:

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Firstly, I think the Scientology:Heroin analogy is a flawed analogy. Arguing it as if it's a valid analogy seems kinda silly to me. The thing I refer to as "the Hard Stuff" is the Fundamentalist/KSW#1/Everything-means-exactly what-He-said-it-means type of scientological Belief. If you're stuck in that mindset, you're stuck.

The anology works if you take it as it's meant. My point is that sometimes a substitute for a bad thing can sometimes be worse than the thing it's substituting for.

Marty and his followers are staunch KSW, Standard Tech all the way, 'LRH was right', True Believers. Marty is VERY clear about that.

I hold no brief for Marty or his Blog and only read it when someone I know announces their exit there or someone here links to an interesting snippet. I have no idea what Marty is supplying at all.

Maybe you should find out?

One person I know went to Marty for some kind of clean-up on his prior CofS auditing and told me that the auditing he received from Marty was the best he'd had. I take him at his word. That's all I actually know about what Marty does. I have no evidence that his auditing is better (if auditing happens to be the thing which you desire, of course) but imagine, having experienced the many facets of the CofS auditing environment, that it probably can't help but be more beneficial than anything you're likely to experience in the CofS.

I'm quite sure that what Marty supplies is subjectively preferable to what the Cof$ supplies, because it doesn't come laced with overwhelmingly abusive treatment, but in my opinion it is still the 'hard stuff', because Marty is KSW all the way, Standard Tech as dictated by Hubbard, nothing taken out, nothing added in.

Panda said: "the Hard Stuff" is the Fundamentalist/KSW#1/Everything-means-exactly what-He-said-it-means type of scientological Belief."

Are you saying that Marty isn't supplying what you defined above? He says that he is.

But here's the bottom line, and I don't think you'll like it much:

Marty is peddling 'Clear' and 'OT - just like the Cof$,
but there is not the tiniest, most tenuous reason to believe that Scientology 'Clears' and 'OT's' have any special positive characteristics or abilities in comparison to any other person you might meet. They are neither more intelligent, more healthy, more creative, more intuitive, or 'better' in any sense than anyone else in any way whatsoever.

People who believe in Clear and OT have drunken deeply of the hard stuff in my view.

But of course, you're free to believe what you wish.

I gather that you believe in the state of Clear.

Good luck with that.


 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes, I understand and agree.

My commentary simply means that I don't think that still-in scientologists (back then) were anywhere near as aware of those things as still-in scientologists (now) seem to be about the current generation of Blogging "dissidents". I give credit where credit is due.
Thank God for the internet! :)

Are you saying that the internet has more workability than the "comm course" and "grade zero" :coolwink:
 

Veda

Sponsor
Yes, I understand and agree.

My commentary simply means that I don't think that still-in scientologists (back then) were anywhere near as aware of those things as still-in scientologists (now) seem to be about the current generation of Blogging "dissidents". I give credit where credit is due.
Thank God for the internet! :)

By all means give credit to the Internet. :)

However, you'd be surprised of how much information circulated pre-Internet, even amongst "still-ins" - soon to be "outs."

Much of this information - and its sources - are now denounced by Rathbun.

Yet this information, and accompanying analyses, formed the basis for what came later.

Rathbun, seeking to discredit much of that information (It besmirches Hubbard), is taking a step backwards.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
<...snip>
Panda said: "the Hard Stuff" is the Fundamentalist/KSW#1/Everything-means-exactly what-He-said-it-means type of scientological Belief."

Are you saying that Marty isn't supplying what you defined above? He says that he is.
<snip...>

I wasn't referring to Marty at all, that direction came from elsewhere. If you read it again you'll see that I was responding to John's commentary lumping all Indies and Freezoners in the "as bad as the CofS" pigeonhole. It's a comfortable but, IMO, naive stance to take.

I know how you feel, though. God forbid that anyone would find something useful in scientology outside of the confines of the CofS. :biggrin:
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
By all means give credit to the Internet. :)

However, you'd be surprised of how much information circulated pre-Internet, even amongst "still-ins" - soon to be "outs."

Much of this information - and its sources - are now denounced by Rathbun.

Yet this information, and accompanying analyses, formed the basis for what came later.

Rathbun, seeking to discredit much of that information (It besmirches Hubbard), is taking a step backwards.
You're right, I would be surprised. The only really negative thing, apart from media reports, which I (as a still-in scientologist) was ever really aware of back in those days was Cyril Vosper's book 'The Mindbenders' and that only came about because of actions to discredit it taken by the GO.

I well remember the Mayo issue and all that but only the official CofS version of things. Life as a practicing scientologist is quite an insular lifestyle, as you're well aware.

Yes, I mainly credit the Internet and its vociferous denizens but I do give some credit to Marty's Blog, simply for existing as a comfortable landing place for those making the jump. I have a number of friends who transitioned thru that scientological halfway-house in rapid order.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
I wasn't referring to Marty at all, that direction came from elsewhere. If you read it again you'll see that I was responding to John's commentary lumping all Indies and Freezoners in the "as bad as the CofS" pigeonhole. It's a comfortable but, IMO, naive stance to take.

I know how you feel, though. God forbid that anyone would find something useful in scientology outside of the confines of the CofS. :biggrin:

You might know some of what I think, but you know nothing about how I feel.

And, yes there are some useful things in Scientology when used outside the Cof$. Not a lot, but some.
 
Top