Scientology explained

[Leon-2]

Do mankind a favor & STFU. Remember this post?

"I am no devotee of Bill Robertson but I can and do recognize that he was a million times more dynamic and causative and creative than all of you slaggers and critics combined. No matter his failings; I have mine too and each one of you the same - no doubt about it - but when evaluating the worth of a person look at the positives they do and not at the negatives. It works much better that way.

And if you need to ask what Bill's positives were then rather go back to sleep, because you are way below understanding anything at all in this subject."

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...at-the-Fuck!-!&p=909494&viewfull=1#post909494

So I spit my dummy once in a while - so what?

But man! You seem to have a link to this to hand so easily, do you have an index of all my posts and what I said at different times?

 

[JustSheila]

He's just mentally quicker, Leon, because Smurf wasn't slowed down by Scientology auditing.

 

[Leon-2]

You know Alex Sibersky was a big time Scio in the LA area back in the early 70's. I think he was ED of LA Org. Or the AO there. Not sure. But during the FEBC heyday he was regging people and delivering like no one had ever done before. He got recalled to Flag while I was there and he got a hero's welcome. Red carpet, dinner with LRH, the works. And he committed a lot of overts too in regging these people and he bullied his staff and all that. Goes without saying.

Anyway, he overheard one guy muttering about the adulation he was getting and complaining about his overts and how they all got glossed over. Alex leaned over to this guy and said "Listen dude, my overts create an effect. Yours never will."

I still regard it as one of the best Scio put-downs ever.

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

Hooray ! ! ! some points of agreement here.

"I find myself a Scientologist in the truest sense of word meaning knowing how to know, or a seeker of learning or wanting to learn more. And by that I do not mean following what Hubbard wrote or said, but by what others as well said."

yep. 100%

That definition of scientology would fit almost everyone who was ever born. What makes you a scientologist is your inability to ditch the 'tech.'

"I have compared Idenics tech to Hubbard Scientology tech and prefer Identics since it is not a belief system but just a system to help a person solve a condition he/she thinks they are in, and no Bridge to Total Freedom nor belief."

Idenics is good stuff. I had one session with (oops, I forget his name. Dang. there goes my perfect recall. Again.) and it was so good that immediately after session the whole area was so totally erased that I could not even recall what it was about.

LOL. I can see that I'm going to get ragged for the above statement. Too bad.

Yes. It's a pity the ragged emoticon is missing.

"Hubbards Scientology and Tech is confined to Hubbard."

Correct.

"I'm reading other sources and comparing. Are you or have you done so?"

Yep. Everything I could get a hold of.

Mary Freeman's ethics tech is absolutely brilliant. Focuses on doing ethics on the first dynamic only. Awesome stuff.

Also did Excalibur with Bill Robertson tech. Did this with LR (RIP). Even though it has its oddities it is yet far far better than OT-3 and NOTs. Handles the area systematically and beautifully.

Dennis Stephens' unraveling of GPM tech is also a work of genius. Calls it TROM. I find his processes a bit heavy going though.

Robert Ducharme also goes into the hall of fame here. His reworking of Dianetics opens it up to wide range of applicatins all done with undreamed of (by Hubbard) effectiveness. R3X it's called.

Then there's Pilot's work. I got a LOT out of that. Available on line.

Alan Walter too deserves huge accolades. He passed on too. I'm not sure what is happening with the delivery of his materials now. I haven't done any of the rundowns but the theory work he has made available is sterling stuff. Roger knows more on this.

Those are the top developers as far as my knowledge of them goes. I have done all of them except Alan's.

There are some lesser luminaries too. Geoffrey Filbert is among these. Best avoided.

 

[JustSheila]

You know Alex Sibersky was a big time Scio in the LA area back in the early 70's. I think he was ED of LA Org. Or the AO there. Not sure. But during the FEBC heyday he was regging people and delivering like no one had ever done before. He got recalled to Flag while I was there and he got a hero's welcome. Red carpet, dinner with LRH, the works. And he committed a lot of overts too in regging these people and he bullied his staff and all that. Goes without saying.

Anyway, he overheard one guy muttering about the adulation he was getting and complaining about his overts and how they all got glossed over. Alex leaned over to this guy and said "Listen dude, my overts create an effect. Yours never will."

I still regard it as one of the best Scio put-downs ever.

I remember Alex Sibersky. He ended up vilified and hated by the same people who had admired him earlier. That sort of fame is short-lived and doesn't end well. Hector Gonzales, the ka khan from CCLA skated through a few Comm Evs too but eventually really hit the skids in every way. We all remember a certain relatively recent email and some very caved in photos from Flag's former FSO and most famous reg. AOLA's most famous reges also didn't end well. Enid Byrne died of cancer working at her desk. Michael Silverman was shot with Comm Evs and every which harassment numerous times over and left Scn altogether.

And L Ron's ending was just classic.

If criminal activity is what you're after, why stop with Scientology? Why not be a full-on terrorist or rob casinos? Then you can have the adventure of being shot down by the FBI. Headlines one day, forgotten the next.

Go for it. It's what crazy people do, right?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

So let me understand this all so far...
You acknowledge that Hubbard was a con artist.

You agree he defined the state of clear to include, among other things, perfect recall of events.

You acknowledge that the state of clear he proposed doesn't exist as, among other things, clears do not have perfect recall of events.

You do not have a definition of a clear.

The official people who are using the so called 'tech' are not doing it right.

The inventor of the so called 'tech' wasn't doing it right.

You admit that much of the tech is bad or doesn't work...

...and you are still committed to this idea?

This reminds me of when I bought my first used car.

The person who sold it to me said it was the best car ever and that I needed to conjure up magic fuel to run it, but the mileage would be more than I could possibly imagine (which reminded me of some science fiction I like, and I guess that was what hooked me in) and that the car will drive with greater precision and faster and that it will damage the suspension less going over bumps. Wheel alignment would be automatic and the car would clear itself of rubbish.

I had real difficulty trying to conjure up magic fuel, and they charged me for a series of expensive courses.

When I tried to get my money back, they followed me home, harassed me at work and did other such things.

It later emerged that the guy who sold me the car (who is now dead), was a known con artist.

The organization has offices in France and all over the USA. Apparently, the organization has found guilty of fraud and individual members have been charged with fraud, extortion, burglary, assault, attempted murder and a list of the sorts of crimes organized criminal organizations are charged with from time to time.

The used car sales lot is now owned by a manic depressed dwarf with alcohol problems and asthma who still calls me trying to sell me courses. Apparently his terminal asbestosis has metastasized to his brain and his is losing his mind. Thankfully, he was stupid and uneducated, so it wasn't a big fall.

He is known to beat his staff on a regular basis during sales meetings. On occasion, during some of the sales meetings, rather than masturbating, he instead assaults his staff.

I have since thrown out the vehicle and the DVD sets, but I have kept some of the books on magic fuel, because some of it rings true to me. I fully acknowledge that there is no research to support this and that various government agencies have raided the organization and charged them with making fraudulent claims, but what is true is what's true for me. I love that expression as it is the most succinct distillation of the essence of superstition itself.

I am still convinced that magic fuel is real. I can't define what it is, but while driving in another car I purchased, using regular fuel, I have the sense that my car works better because of the magic.

Does anyone have a problem with that?

Jeez, that was cool and funny.

I liked it so much, I think I recovered 97.5% of my theta units that had been enturbulated and lost by reading the Scientologists on this thread.

Thanks! LOL

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

I remember Alex Sibersky. He ended up vilified and hated by the same people who had admired him earlier. That sort of fame is short-lived and doesn't end well. Hector Gonzales, the ka khan from CCLA skated through a few Comm Evs too but eventually really hit the skids in every way. We all remember a certain relatively recent email and some very caved in photos from Flag's former FSO and most famous reg. AOLA's most famous reges also didn't end well. Enid Byrne died of cancer working at her desk. Michael Silverman was shot with Comm Evs and every which harassment numerous times over and left Scn altogether.

And L Ron's ending was just classic.

If criminal activity is what you're after, why stop with Scientology? Why not be a full-on terrorist or rob casinos? Then you can have the adventure of being shot down by the FBI. Headlines one day, forgotten the next.

Go for it. It's what crazy people do, right?

Wasn't Alex one of the guys who started Postulate Checks? I saw him around in AOLA - but I think he went to Boston and that's where he started the postulate check business. Maybe him and David Light? It was either that or they got sent there to boom the org as making up the damage for some overt or other. My wife twinned with his wife Andrea for a while - she would tell my wife stories about cooking for Ron on the ship, she would bake something up - throw some this or that in the pot. Then Ron would want an exact recipe or have her cook it again. He would get really pissed when it came out different. She didn't pay much attention to how much of what she put it the dish, it would drive him nuts.

Mimsey

 

[JustSheila]

Wow, you have a good memory, Mimsey! Yup, i remember David Light and Alex Sibersky and their postulate checks. Some of the less criminal reges at least held onto them in their desks, but not Alex Sibersky or David Light!

Great story about Sibersky's wife driving Hubbard nuts with pinches of this or that.

Mooor stories, please!

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

--snipped--

Do mankind a favor & STFU.

In Scientology I ran out 5,000 implants and ran around a pole for 5,000 hours and ran off 5,000 BTs. But, considering the aggregate benefit from all of that--I had more "case gain" from the 5 seconds it took to read your post.

There's just something really theta and exquisitely wonderful when someone picks the perfect moment to say STFU. LOL

 

[Free Being Me]

>snip< And L Ron's ending was just classic.

If criminal activity is what you're after, why stop with Scientology? Why not be a full-on terrorist or rob casinos? Then you can have the adventure of being shot down by the FBI. Headlines one day, forgotten the next.

Go for it. It's what crazy people do, right?

Commonalities between $cientology and the Mafia:

• Both are "experts" on caving in their enemies
• Both have off-shore money account "war chests"
• Both offer "protection" from rivals
• Both will dispose of you quietly without sorrow for the greatest good
• Both will show up on your doorstep because they want to help you (with an offer you can't refuse)
• Both have a code of silence
• Both have politicians in their pockets
• Both use Plausible Deniability
• Both expect you to sign up for life
• Both use methods of persuasion to see it their way
• Both have a God/COBfather

It's just good business, nothing personal ....

 

[Claire Swazey]

Discussing Scn conceptually can be fun and sometimes takes place.

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

Discussing Scn conceptually can be fun and sometimes takes you places.

FIFY.

 

[Smurf]

You know Alex Sibersky was a big time Scio in the LA area back in the early 70's. I think he was ED of LA Org. Or the AO there. Not sure. But during the FEBC heyday he was regging people and delivering like no one had ever done before. He got recalled to Flag while I was there and he got a hero's welcome. Red carpet, dinner with LRH, the works. And he committed a lot of overts too in regging these people and he bullied his staff and all that. Goes without saying.

Anyway, he overheard one guy muttering about the adulation he was getting and complaining about his overts and how they all got glossed over. Alex leaned over to this guy and said "Listen dude, my overts create an effect. Yours never will." I still regard it as one of the best Scio put-downs ever.

His sins caught up with him. Alex & his wife Maggie were declared in 1977 & ended up on the cult's 'Enemies List".

http://community.freezone-tech.info/times/2009/03/09/the-65000-reg-cycle

Alex & Maggie divorced & each remarried. Alex & wife Anita live in New York & a Google search shows they've been involved in several lawsuits.

http://www.businesslookup.org/185_lennox_avenue_corporation

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court-appellate-division/1212788.html

Alex & Maggie has a son, Nick. Maggie lives in Irvine & as does her son. https://www.facebook.com/maggie.d.mcintee

 

[degraded being]

.
.
After that other horrible stuff on threads a coupla days ago (nothing to do with Leon) this here thread seems light and breezy and possibly of some benefit in 'use them or lose them' (brain cells). Where's Mockingbird?

 

[Smurf]

After that other horrible stuff on threads a coupla days ago (nothing to do with Leon) this here thread seems light and breezy and possibly of some benefit in 'use them or lose them' (brain cells). Where's Mockingbird?

In hiding??

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

After that other horrible stuff on threads a coupla days ago (nothing to do with Leon) this here thread seems light and breezy and possibly of some benefit in 'use them or lose them' (brain cells). Where's Mockingbird?

In hiding??

Either that, or cuddling with wife, stuffing hisself with christmas cookies, working, having a life, hunting elsewhere,...

 

[Balthasar]

And how much does it cost to live a lifetime in your dark world of the lord of the darkness ????

Why not spend more time in gardens, instead of fearfull entities you will encounter beautifull elf It's free and can be taken without any restrain.

I am not a dark lord despite my avatar name, which by the way, corresponds to my birth certificate details.

However my sister was married to a warlock. This guy would have easily qualified as an OT by the book. Hubbard would have been proud of him if he ever were a Scientologist. Thank God she got rid of this jealous nuts guy because it wasn't funny when he stalked her repeatedly without being physically present

 

[Balthasar]

In a way, you're right, and you did well to stay away from these, though I disagree that they are spiritual entities. The phenomenon exists within neuroscience. That is where OT auditing becomes dangerous - memory works in many different directions and cells hold different aspects of memories and experiences used for rational thinking. Hit and miss like this can really mess someone up. I'm glad you stopped.

I think you'll find this article on recent findings in brain research more than a bit fascinating, and terrifying, too, in the way memory can be altered:

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/16/6984423/memory-delete-create-false-change-science-PTSD

I just avoided addressing anything neaby the body after OT3. I didn't stop auditing, I just stayed away from addressing cell memory. It became clear to me that this would not be BT's but cells or cell memory if I direct my attention to anything at my body.

At OT3 one would look for pressure areas on the body to locate a so called BT. That is ok. You aren't dealing with cells what you find there. Later, if you continue the wrong way, you are hitting cell memory and that is dangerous. That's what I wanted to say. Stay away from auditing body or part of it on NOTs.

I ceased solo auditing because I felt there was nothing more which I would like to handle. I had achieved what I was looking for. I audited Excalibur so I am not an expert on NOTs. It have certainly read the NOTs HCOB's. I found worth mention the point about addressing body parts. Not at last, I find that it was a major cause Hubbard messed himself up.

My attitude is positive towards well meant auditing. I am a proponent of CBR's Rons Org approach. My apologies if my sometimes quick replies made it look otherwise.

 

[ToeOut83]

SNIPPED:

You see, essentially he was trying to define a not-thereness. And how does anyone define that? How do you describe anything that is not there? It can't be done. I can define a pencil as being whatever, but to define an absence of a pencil? How to describe a not-there-ness? Can't really be done.

Bullshit! You say you can't define the absence of a pencil? You just did: The absence of a pencil. One might also define it as pencil-free. It means there's no pencil there. I defy anybody to tell me that's a difficult concept to grasp. Well, anybody except you, since you just did. But I fail to see the difficulty to grasp not-there-ness, and I don't think it's because I'm not good at grasping abstract concepts--I think it's because there's no difficulty to see.

Not-there-ness (sounds very $cientology-esque) isn't difficult at all to define, or grasp. It just means the absence of something. As long as the something not-there is named/labeled/defined--and I suspect that's the real difficulty here, not defining the absence-- as soon as you define what's missing, defining the missingness of the whatness (wow, wonder if I could copyright that word and sell it to Co$?) becomes trivial

Water is H2O. Absence of water is "dry". Not hard to grasp, not at all.

One definition of wind is air in motion. Not the air itself, but motion of the air. It might also be defined as "moving air".
Not-there-ness of wind is called "still air". Might also be called "calm air." But it ain't hard to define absence of wind.

No air? Airless. Could be underwater, could be a vacuum. But not hard to grasp, not at all.

Vacuum can be defined as absence of any matter. Now I'll grant that some of the Classical Greek philosophers had trouble grasping that (Aristotle flatly stated that the concept of a vacuum was absurd), but in the last few hundred years we've come a long way toward understanding how the universe is put together and how it works. We developed this discipline called "science", which includes a concept called "scientific method", and the results have been phenomenal. One result is that even grade-school children can now understand what a vacuum is--lots of them even know how to test for it.

But back to the state of Clear, it's not hard to define. It was defined in DMSMH: Clear is the absence (the not-there-ness, if you prefer) of engrams. Clear is to engrams as vacuum is to matter, if that helps. So to define clear, you only need to define engrams.

From what you previously posted, you apparently still believe in engrams, which are defined in DMSMH. Given that engrams are what keeps mental processes from working perfectly, then the absence of engrams implies vastly improved mental processes, including memory, ability to learn math, faster calculation in math you already know (I can tally up the seconds in a year in my head, but it takes me awhile and I never remember the number a year later), learning languages faster--if we had past lives, we ought to be able to remember the languages we were speaking then. That would sure solve a lot of questions about dead languages. But the point is, the results of Clear...or not-there-ness of engrams, if you prefer to call it that...are testable, if there really is such a thing as engrams (and therefore such a thing as Clear).

So "show me a fucking Clear", says Jason. Can't.

Did they ever exist? Oh yes. Momentarily. Even now on a good day I'm as clear as can be. Bu don't try and measure it. That will interiorise me and it'll be gone. It manifests only for as long as you don't try and prove it's there.

Um...It sounds like you have a different definition of Clear than is used in Scientology. Clear being the absence (not-there-ness) of engrams, and the engrams having been erased by auditing (as you claim is done), how can Clear not be a permanent state? As is claimed by Scientology Tech? If you're defining basic concepts differently, how is it still Scientology?

But more to the point: If you can't attain a permanent level of Clear, it ought to clue you in that the whole theory of the mind and engrams is OFF. Or, if you prefer, there's "an out-ness in the conception-ness" of engrams and Clear.

Pilot actually said it right. he had his finger right on it. The wins of Scientology can be divided into three groups.

Group one is the way things just go better for one. One gets to be more "lucky". It can't be measured nor can one point to a process that brought it about. It happens as a by-product of getting into the subject. Most people notice this change.

Yeah, that happens to me too when I'm having a good day/week/month. It's especially noticeable after I've had profound discussions with close friends, and especially when we share special bonding moments and clear the air of things that bother us. I'd guess it happens to most people sometimes. If it can't be measured, then you can't say that it happens more to people who have had your auditing; That would imply it could be measured.

Leon, I really don't know what you're touting, but it really doesn't sound much like Scientology. When you re-define things that much, it makes a lot more sense to use another word than to use a word that now has widely different definitions. Using different words is less confusing.

And BTW--language is the practice of people communicating with words, such that the person listening understands the thoughts of the person speaking. For this to happen, both speaker and listener must use common definitions for the words used.
When a person "defines" a word for himself and nobody else uses or knows that definition, then that word is not part of language. Language only occurs with common definitions. At least one other person must define the word the same way for it to be language. And if it's only one other person (or a sufficiently small number), then "code" or "jargon" would be better words than "language."

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

Commonalities between $cientology and the Mafia:

• Both are "experts" on caving in their enemies
• Both have off-shore money account "war chests"
• Both offer "protection" from rivals
• Both will dispose of you quietly without sorrow for the greatest good
• Both will show up on your doorstep because they want to help you (with an offer you can't refuse)
• Both have a code of silence
• Both have politicians in their pockets
• Both use Plausible Deniability
• Both expect you to sign up for life
• Both use methods of persuasion to see it their way
• Both have a God/COBfather

It's just good business, nothing personal ....

Some important differences

Mafiosos eat much more and much better than Sea Org.

No one laughs at the Mafia.

The Mafia have a good foothold in Hollywood.

Movies about the Mafia are cool.

The Mafia are good with numbers.

The Mafia's orgs in Las Vegas are making money.

The Mafia have dress sense.

The Mafia take care of the family.

The Mafia have adapted their business strategy with the times.

The Mafia would never play music that sounded anything like Hubbard's Jazz.

The Mafia have better teeth.

The products that the Mafia sell actually exist.

The FDA would never have cause to raid the Mafia.

When the Mafia administers toxic levels of chemicals in a sauna, they don't charge the victim a fee.

The Mafia keeps their oiliness in their hair and off the table.

Thursday 2 PM is just the end of a long lunch for the Mafia.

The Mafia don't shoot their mother-in-law.

The Mafia don't think that Catholicism is an alien implant.

The Mafia don't hold a patent for a concealable microphone.