What's new

Obscure

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
...

Anyone who left the COS (Crimewave of Scientology) and started reading and/or posting on the Internet made an outstanding decision and answered the multiple choice question correctly:

a) Salvage this sector

b) Save this planet

c) Save yourself
 

Dave B.

Maximus Ultimus Mostimus
Not more story but my opinion on the discussion as to what is and isn't valid.

I couldn't care less about Hubbard's background or how much or little of Scientology was developed or discovered by him or whether he stole the whole thing. It has no bearing on it's workability. It still comes down to whether or not it works.

Misunderstood words do mess up study. People do justify overts. It greatly improves your outlook to get off O/Ws. There are such things as engrams and they can be run and there is benefit to having them run. Etc.

If LRH was a serial adulterer and child molester the above would still be true. So I don't care about the truth of his background or life.

The same is true for Miscavige. Whatever his crimes. Whatever the eventual outcome. None of it actually invalidates the tech. It sure will harm it PR wise but that isn't hard to deal with on a one to one basis.




You're in the right place.

You'll eventually get over the "Holy Sacred Tech" disability, if you can continue to be honest with yourself. It's an on-going process to.... well, to use a cult term for ease of communication. False data strip yourself of cult programming re: the Holy Tecque.

Anyway, welcome.





* Yeah, I know. inval and eval. Welcome to the wider world.
 
Last edited:

Deeana

Patron with Honors
"it sounds like way too much drama in your head"

This is something I have noticed about scientologists and some ex-scientologists. They continuously use the most awful, violence-ridden phrases. I was reading on the S. African blog yesterday and someone wrote "They're in there shooting people at the Org". It took me a few seconds to realize this is just another one of those "lovely descriptive phrases" so common in this organization. Phrases like "Heads will roll", "head on a pike", "shooting people", and "burning at the stake".

Was it always this way? It is, in my opinion, unhealthy.
 

Arthur Dent

Silver Meritorious Patron
I think you are making the right choice by getting out of a suppressive enviroment. But i'm new here as well, and i've already had a person post some very disturbing shit to me. I was asking if anyone knew any of the staff i used to work with, looking to potentially find other blown ARC-broken public to reconnect with, possibly to apologize to... and i was received with a stalker-ish report of all their facebooks, work history and addresses.

I also feel that posts like that are generally in the minority, but be aware that once you are out or disconnected that it's OK for people to disagree with Ron, the Church, and even you. That being said i do wonder whether or not some people who watch and lurk this site would like to see me, you, and every other person who's ever practiced scientology burn at the stake literally, for our unforgiveable, unspeakable crimes.

idk. best of luck. Reach out if you need a terminal.

Welcome Marcus!
The person you found stalker-ish was only trying to help you. You're new here. Relax a little, have a look around for a few months. There is a lot going on here. Some new all the time, some old. Some very internet savvy and wanting to help; some have barely used the internet, having come fresh out of the sea org or staff situations. You did post a non-e post, so, just sayin'.....:coolwink: hang out and relax. The leaving process doesn't happen overnight, although it may seem that way. I guarantee you that in six months you will be much more yourself and your views will have loosened up and emerged, uninfluenced by scn or this board, and you'll find yourself surprised when you look back to now. Enjoy the journey. Looking forward to your stories.
 

Dean Blair

Silver Meritorious Patron
Welcome to ESMB Artful. We are happy to see that you have come to a new realization about the current state of the C of $. I am looking forward to any stories you have to tell.
 
Hi,

I'm keeping under the radar for another month or so while I get around some good friends who are still in. My beef is solely with the management of the CoS and not with LRH or the tech.

I started in 1980 and over the years have been on staff for about 5 years.

I probably know a bunch of you though there is only 1 username I recognise, Terl Park

Sorry to be so obscure as I'm sure this board isn't monitored by OSA :eyeroll:

hi arty!

management is fucked up but i'd have to say there are some pretty substantial problems with policy

i'm not a "techie" but i am an auditor and the basic concepts are very strong and practicable though the implants of helatrobus etc are... uhh...
 
Not more story but my opinion on the discussion as to what is and isn't valid.

I couldn't care less about Hubbard's background or how much or little of Scientology was developed or discovered by him or whether he stole the whole thing. It has no bearing on it's workability. It still comes down to whether or not it works.

Misunderstood words do mess up study. People do justify overts. It greatly improves your outlook to get off O/Ws. There are such things as engrams and they can be run and there is benefit to having them run. Etc.

If LRH was a serial adulterer and child molester the above would still be true. So I don't care about the truth of his background or life.

The same is true for Miscavige. Whatever his crimes. Whatever the eventual outcome. None of it actually invalidates the tech. It sure will harm it PR wise but that isn't hard to deal with on a one to one basis.

Why are you not using your name? Are you worried that OSA will use some of LRH's workable tech on you?
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Hi,

I'm keeping under the radar for another month or so while I get around some good friends who are still in. My beef is solely with the management of the CoS and not with LRH or the tech.

I started in 1980 and over the years have been on staff for about 5 years.

I probably know a bunch of you though there is only 1 username I recognise, Terl Park

Sorry to be so obscure as I'm sure this board isn't monitored by OSA :eyeroll:

Of course it isn't! However monitored by all and sundry including NSA
via facebook. See appropriate threads.

Note I'm Terril Park. Terl was a main character in one of Rons SIFI books.

I'm not a giant lizard.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
I think you are making the right choice by getting out of a suppressive enviroment. But i'm new here as well, and i've already had a person post some very disturbing shit to me. I was asking if anyone knew any of the staff i used to work with, looking to potentially find other blown ARC-broken public to reconnect with, possibly to apologize to... and i was received with a stalker-ish report of all their facebooks, work history and addresses.

I also feel that posts like that are generally in the minority, but be aware that once you are out or disconnected that it's OK for people to disagree with Ron, the Church, and even you. That being said i do wonder whether or not some people who watch and lurk this site would like to see me, you, and every other person who's ever practiced scientology burn at the stake literally, for our unforgiveable, unspeakable crimes.

idk. best of luck. Reach out if you need a terminal.

I think you refer to Smurf. He's very good re computer searches.
Not a stalker per se.
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

The problem is that the tech works and once you know the tech works from personal experience you then have a big reason to want the DM b/s to be true. It's also hard to explain without a good long hard look how it is that the subject can hold so much promise and yet the management can be so corrupt. It doesn't add up and is therefore easy to reject.

I'll tell more of my story in coming posts.

Underlining, above, added.

Are you sure that you don't mean that some of tech works?

An example: From 1968 to 1978, Hubbard's instructions for OTs that have somatics was: "HE NEEDS DIANETICS."

During the same time period, Hubbard explained that only 2% go Clear on Dianetics and, then, it's only keyed-out Clear, not real Clear. These two percent were instructed to do PP, R6EW, and the CC to become real Clears.

In 1978, Hubbard announced that auditing OTs on Dianetics was "deadly," and that Dianetics routinely makes Clears, and - he had just discovered - had always been making them all these years, and that keyed-out Clear was Clear. Period. With no elaboration.

The newly announced Dianetic Clears were to skip PP, R6EW, and CC and go directly to OT 1.

At the time, Hubbard had become interested in acquiring the bank accounts and property of the Missions, and the Missions were accused of "holding on to [the newly recognized] "Dianetic Clears," which were supposed - now - to exit the Missions and report "up lines." But that's another story.


David_Mayo.jpg

Former C/S International and Class 12, David Mayo.


If you haven't seen this 1990 article by David Mayo on Clear: http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html, it's worth a look. :)

An excerpt:

"It was PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were 'clear' at a certain point."


So, I would say that some of the tech works. But all of it?


An old re-post. If you haven't seen this, maybe it will be of some use.


The cheese

sbMouseTrap.jpg


And the trap


___________​


Auditing is an English language word.

Amongst synonyms listed by Merriam-Webster are: "Examination, going-over, review, scan, scrutiny, view."

The Latin root word means, "a hearing," or "to hear."

Scientology has adopted the word, "auditing."

ron-operator-1980.jpg


Those introduced to auditing by Scientologists, both inside and outside the CofS, are often told the above definitions are descriptive of Scientology auditing.


_________________​


IMO, it's important to discern between the "bait" portion of auditing where one is primarily asked, and the "switch" portion of "auditing" where one is primarily told.


"This is a cold blooded and factual account of your last sixty trillion years," from 1952's 'What to Audit' (a.k.a. 'History of Man') found Hubbard telling others the contents of their minds, but it was premature "mind grope," just as the early 1950s e-meter reactions projected on the wall with shadows, while the audience went "ooh!" and "ahh!", was premature "Your e-meter will tell you"-ism, and the 1951 "no rights of any kind" was premature SP Doctrine, and the 1951 "dispose of quietly and without sorrow" was premature Fair Game Law and premature disconnection - disconnection in its most extreme form.

It was too early for the implementation of these ideas on the still small, fragile and tentative membership. That would need to wait for a decade, as would Hubbard's implementation of most of the ideas outlined in the "enigmatic" (fraudulent) "Russian Textbook on Psycho-politics."

1955-brainwashing-front2.jpg
http://exscn.net/content/view/178/105/index.html


In the mean time, Hubbard surrounded himself with those excited about his much advertised vision of a better world, and excited about the full releasing of spiritual ability.

Hubbard liked to write and he liked to lecture, and he had a knack as a practical psychologist. He drew on the ideas and innovations of the most creative of those around him, and drew on his own knowledge of abreaction (catharsis, "get it [buried thoughts and emotions] off your chest") therapy, of Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics, and of Aleister Crowley's Magic(k). Hubbard re-worked the (four 'letters' - ingredients - of the) Kabbalistic 'tetragrammaton', and it became his 'Four Conditions of Existence'. Hubbard rewrote Crowley's 'Naples Arrangement' and it became his 'The Factors'. He borrowed Crowley's idea of a multiplicity of infinite minds and further excited Scientologists with that notion. None of these were original with Crowley, who was as much a relay point as was Hubbard. Yet, unlike Crowley, Hubbard would eventually incorporate the methods of psychological warfare into his system, and use those methods, not only on his perceived enemies, but on his own followers.

And when he finally - in the mid 1960s - unleashed, mostly covertly, the psychological warfare methods of the "Russian Textbook" on Scientologists, he also returned to fully utilizing those ideas he had briefly tested more than a decade earlier. He gave Scientologists a past, he gave them a future, he told them the contents of their own minds, and made it plain that only HE knew and others were going to be told.

emetertravolta.jpg


Hubbard had written confidentially of the importance of "using enemy tactics," and would even use those "enemy tactics" on his own loyal followers. He had written of psychiatrists in August 1963:

"Psychiatry is authoritarian and tells the person what's wrong with him, often introducing a new lie. Scientology finds out what's wrong with the person from the person."

Soon to follow would be the secret and very serious, and very dangerous, and vital to your survival "Clearing Course," "OT 2" and "OT 3," in which Hubbard would do what he said the psychiatrists did.

Dianetics.jpg


Hubbard had done this in 1952, but now it was formalized and institutionalized, and a senior part of the doctrine of Scientology doctrine.


From Hubbard, 1966:

"Many persons experience unreality at the start of[implant] GPM running [told to you, not asked, by Hubbard through the materials]; this leaves when you see the meter reads."


L. Ron Hubbard, from 1946, from his (private) ''Affirmations':

"Your writing has a deep hypnotic effect on people and they are always pleased with what you write.

"Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."


Despite all this, is there some value in the simplest application of the definition of auditing? - a definition that predates Scientology.

IMO, yes. However, as such, it is no longer Scientology.


Asking a person, "How ya doing?" and listening attentively, and acknowledging, qualifies as "auditing" by an introductory definition of "auditing," as does asking a person to recall a pleasant experience, listening, and then acknowledging.

Such introductory actions, presented as "auditing" are often what leads a person into Scientology, and causes the person to pursue the Scientology "bait and switch" Grade Chart.

Scientology/Scientology Philosophy/Scientology Doctrine, is sneaky. It wraps itself in positives so as to mislead the unsuspecting.

Not recognizing this mostly benign introductory aspect means not recognizing the "cheese" part of the trap, and means also not recognizing a main part of Scientology's disguise layer.

Thoroughly describing Scientology is the most dangerous thing that can be done to Scientology.

Scientology uses good people, and uses - sometimes - good ideas, to mislead, to build confidence, and to trap.

A description without noting the above is incomplete, IMO.


The definition of auditing changes as the person descends further into Scientology. At first, auditing is little more than one person talking with another person. At this stage, in and of itself, auditing is, essentially, benign. It may even be beneficial.

This "sells" the person on the idea of "auditing."

Then it becomes something else.


"Auditing" has multiple meanings that, in accordance with Scientology's "gradients of deception" and "bait and switch" pattern, mislead a person onto the Scientology Grade Chart, a Chart that begins with mostly benign actions, and eventually becomes manipulative, "hypnotic," and potentially psychologically damaging.

That's why issuing forth a Bronx cheer,
Bronx-Cheer.jpg
indiscriminately, on the topic of auditing is helpful to Scientology. Such a Bronx cheer asserts that one of Scientology's - initially benign, and even helpful - enticements, and lead-ins, is entirely without value, which is sometimes simply not so.

Describing Scientology fully means recognizing that there are some twinkling ornaments of light, and (even) truth, wrapped around the black hole of Scientology doctrine.


Hope this helps. :)
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
:welcome: Marcus!

I think you are making the right choice by getting out of a suppressive enviroment. But i'm new here as well, and i've already had a person post some very disturbing shit to me. I was asking if anyone knew any of the staff i used to work with, looking to potentially find other blown ARC-broken public to reconnect with, possibly to apologize to... and i was received with a stalker-ish report of all their facebooks, work history and addresses.

<snip>
(My bold)

I've read the post you mentioned and although I can understand that it might come off as a bit scary for a newbie as yourself, I doubt that it was meant that way. IMO, it was just a post by someone who did some extra homework and I think it was intended to be helpful.

Jus' sayin' :coolwink:

EDIT:
:welcome: to Artful too and apologies for not welcoming you right away - I thought I was replying in the other thread. Sorry for that.
 
Last edited:

Artful

New Member
Of course it isn't! However monitored by all and sundry including NSA
via facebook. See appropriate threads.

Note I'm Terril Park. Terl was a main character in one of Rons SIFI books.

I'm not a giant lizard.


I know it's Terril. I just always thought of you as Terl. It was nothing personal.

You were once the Cope Off at London and as I recall you were very productive. We'll catch up soon.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I feel I have a tolerance for this sort of thing, as i said I only lasted 2 years because i refused to believe that LRH was infallible. But on the same token, whether he was a fraud in all respects, is not something i make snap judgement on. For example, i do not consider the ARC triangle some sort of implant, or hokey bs. I have seen it to work, and it is applicable just as much as Thoughtful Meditation from Hindu or buddhist variety. Every religion has a mega-crook in it, but I believe the intentions of religion, at least at their inception are well-meaning.

So while i am able to grant that viewpoint of others that Scn is trash and everything under the heading of scn is trash, I grant it only so much as someone saying the same thing about Catholicism or Baptism, or Agnosticism, it is purely ignorant to not separate the applicable (and call it implants or brainwashing) and the inapplicable.

I can respect the idea that you must reject EVERYTHING from anything that has cost you as dearly as your family or close friends, or children, that makes sense. But I have a hard time with the viewpoint that something which is observable and has common ground in many other forms of spiritual enlghtenment, be cast aside simply because it's Scn.

It's the old "baby and the bathwater" issue. I threw away a lot of stuff from my time in the Church, but am willing to use Scientologese if it makes discussion of a concept easier. Many ex-scientologists got together in the 80's and did a "rewrite" of the stuff they found valuable, while putting it into terms that were less laden with sciency-sounding technobabble. Since then, their work has been tested, refined, and is now peer-reviewed and accepted by the APA and NASW. :) I've let the old crap go, and stuck with what worked.
 

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
I think you are making the right choice by getting out of a suppressive enviroment. But i'm new here as well, and i've already had a person post some very disturbing shit to me. I was asking if anyone knew any of the staff i used to work with, looking to potentially find other blown ARC-broken public to reconnect with, possibly to apologize to... and i was received with a stalker-ish report of all their facebooks, work history and addresses.

LOL. You're a real piece of work. Would you like some cheese with your whine? :clap:
 
"it sounds like way too much drama in your head"

This is something I have noticed about scientologists and some ex-scientologists. They continuously use the most awful, violence-ridden phrases. I was reading on the S. African blog yesterday and someone wrote "They're in there shooting people at the Org". It took me a few seconds to realize this is just another one of those "lovely descriptive phrases" so common in this organization. Phrases like "Heads will roll", "head on a pike", "shooting people", and "burning at the stake".

Was it always this way? It is, in my opinion, unhealthy.

Ron started it...have you actually listened to his lectures? SHEESH! :ohmy: :duh:
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
It's the old "baby and the bathwater" issue. I threw away a lot of stuff from my time in the Church, but am willing to use Scientologese if it makes discussion of a concept easier. Many ex-scientologists got together in the 80's and did a "rewrite" of the stuff they found valuable, while putting it into terms that were less laden with sciency-sounding technobabble. Since then, their work has been tested, refined, and is now peer-reviewed and accepted by the APA and NASW. :) I've let the old crap go, and stuck with what worked.

Uh some links or actual proof to this "peer reviewed" work you speak of, it being peer-reviewed and all Im sure there are plenty of references to the important work done by this madcap group of ex-scientologists who "rewrote" stuff they found useful, stripping it of all Scio tech babble, and are now being embraced by social workers and psychologists' professional organizations. Hell it must be all over university websites since that's who is in charge of peer reviewed material and journals - people with graduate degrees generally being the "peers" in question when it comes to psychologists or counselors with a MSW.

Sorry I call major bullshit - just because someone you trust told you something does make it true. Wanting to believe something does not make it "peer reviewed."
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Hi,

I'm keeping under the radar for another month or so while I get around some good friends who are still in. My beef is solely with the management of the CoS and not with LRH or the tech.

I started in 1980 and over the years have been on staff for about 5 years.

I probably know a bunch of you though there is only 1 username I recognise, Terl Park

Sorry to be so obscure as I'm sure this board isn't monitored by OSA :eyeroll:


Welcome Artful (dodger?) ... you are definitely in the right place if you feel like laughing your way out of the cult and as long as you don't actively try to 'promote' the tek (here) I don't imagine you will have any problems and think you'll fit right in.

Nice to meet you anyway.

:welcome::welcome::welcome:
 

Veda

Sponsor

Welcome Artful (dodger?) ... you are definitely in the right place if you feel like laughing your way out of the cult and as long as you don't actively try to 'promote' the tek (here) I don't imagine you will have any problems and think you'll fit right in.

Nice to meet you anyway.

:welcome::welcome::welcome:

:) Dear ITYIWT,

There's not much virtue with "fitting right in."

There are likely going to be a lot of new people arriving, having left an environment where they are expected to "fit right in."

The existence of many points of view, spirited debate, free flow of information - including information that may make some new arrivals uncomfortable at times - is healthy.

However, IMO, encouraging others to "fit right in" is not the way to go.

And to the several recent new arrivals, Artful, Marcus Sawyer, Galactic Patrol, and others, I second ITYIWT's message of :welcome: .

And feel free not to fit right in.
 
Top