The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientology

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientology.

Bulverism is a logical fallacy. Wikipedia further explains:

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Bulverism is a name for a logical fallacy that combines a genetic fallacy with circular reasoning. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error". The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker is so mistaken, attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive. The term "Bulverism" was coined by C. S. Lewis[SUP][1][/SUP] to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleges, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.
Similar to Antony Flew's "Subject/Motive Shift", Bulverism is a fallacy of irrelevance. One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer's identity or motive, but these are strictly speaking irrelevant to the argument's validity or truth. But it is also a fallacy of circular reasoning, since it assumes, rather than argues, that one's opponent is wrong.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *


Similarly, the Rational Wiki explains:

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Bulverism the logical fallacy of assuming without discussion that a person is wrong and then distracting his or her attention from this (the only real issue) by explaining how that person became so silly, usually associating it to a psychological condition. The fallacy deals with secondary questions about ideas rather than the primary one, thus avoiding the basic question or evading the issues raised by trains of reasoning. It is essentially dodging your opponent's argument by treating them like a psychological patient who needs your evaluation to explain why they came up with such a ridiculous argument in the first place.The fallacy was coined by C.S. Lewis in his essay, "First and Second things".[edit]Strict usage

The form of the Bulverism fallacy can be expressed as follows:You claim that A is true.Because of B, you personally desire that A should be true.Therefore, A is false.orYou claim that A is false.Because of B, you personally desire that A should be false.Therefore, A is true.[h=2][edit]Examples[/h]
  • Used by pseudo-skeptics: "Religion is just a silly idea made up by people to cope with the discomfort of living in a purposeless, Godless universe."
  • Used by those of a religious bent: "Atheists only deny the existence of God because they're angry at him[SUP][1][/SUP]."
  • Used by those on the fringes of the political spectrum: "Liberals only support a Nanny State because they're crazy and neurotic," or "Conservatives only support capitalism because they're psychopaths and hate the poor."
[edit]See also

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

Logical Gal explains the derivation of the name as follows:

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Have you ever heard of Ezekiel Bulver? He’s an imaginary 5-year old, immortalized by CS Lewis in brief hypothetical transformative moment of this young man’s life.” ….. Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father – who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third – “Oh, you say that because you are a man.”At that moment,” E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet.” (essay read to the Socratic Club at Oxford in 1941)What CS Lewis describes in story form is none other than the Genetic Fallacy. Remember that fallacies are often used IN PLACE OF reason, either to make a case OR to attack an opponent’s claim.This kind of low blow attempts to discredit the speaker by talking about his or her origins.To wit:
  • What do you expect from someone over 40?
  • You’re only saying that because you’re a conservative!
  • Of course they would argue that way, look at what they have to gain!
Do you see how these retorts are likely to distract the recipient from the merits of the argument in question? Tactical parries of this sort often lead someone on a fruitless bunny trail away from the meat of the discussion itself.
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

The Independent Scientology Milestone Two essay at issue is:

Vengeful attacks

https://milestonetwo.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/vengeful-attacks/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Vengeful attacks

Posted by Lana M.

May 28, 2016

by Bruce C

For anyone who has experienced personal gains from L. Ron Hubbard’s works and writings and is unwilling to be denied their value it can be abrading, or at least questioning, to read popular smears against the founder of Scientology. The latest I have seen was written by Hana Eltringham, a well-known and once-respected name in the Sea Org in which she accuses Ron of “being always right.”

There has also been a recent post to Mike Rinder’s blog from a person who reported to be a current online Scientologist and well trained Data Series Analyst (none of which is proved) who began an exposé with a brilliant situation analysis and in her findings proceeded to squat deliver diarrhea all over Hubbard’s face based on her personal opinions.

Note: I have not provided links here. If you are that interested in reading this tripe then feel free to search for it online. It’s there.

The first thing I consider about these is ARC-X revenge of some sort. Certainly, there is can be the MWH phenomena at work. There is also a huge gray-zone between PTS and SP, for better or worse an area never better delineated than in SOS. And yes, I am using Scientology acronyms, mainly because if you don’t know them, then you are not informed enough to make worthy comment about any of this.

Volumes can and should be written about Ron’s tech and how it has/could/can reach the world into which it was delivered. But its evaluation should always be viewed given the disparity (gap) between our present society and truth. It is one thing to bring about a truth that will set man free, but bring it against man’s long dedication to being man.

Let’s keep it simple here. To me, the basic tech of the ARC Triangle, that alone, is miles above any tech ever seen on or considered on this planet, inclusive of Buddhism, Christianity, or any “ism” which has attempted to move mankind forward in a better direction; though each of them included the ARC principle somewhere and somehow in its tenets.

Yet, these writers attack. Hana for instance denies all case gain from OTIII. What she did not write about is her success stories and attestation from her auditing. The best (if not only) explanation here is that she lied.

And now we are to be believed by Hana. Right?

There is, unfortunately, a lesson to be carried on here. PC’s did evidently promote their ser-fac personages over actual case gain. That is a sad revelation but undeniably true. Also true is Ron’s statement in CS-Series 20 that he had originally underestimated the insanity of mankind.

When I consider the accomplishments that Ron envisioned for his technology, I consider them to be of a better perspective and confront of evil than I could have ever, or even now presume. Going into the unknown is sometimes, even with the best of study, unknown.

For what it’s worth, no, I do not always abide with Ron’s policies. I like to think he would respect me for that. For one, I was there in the Toronto’s so-called boom days, and even as an auditor in the HGC, I had to seek outside income (Canadian Socialism) in order to pay my rent and assuage my hunger. There is no way I can justify that lapse in HCO-PL’s even tho there was written about auditor pay bonuses.

Ron has written (sorry, paraphrased) that the first thing they do is attack him rather than his technology. How true, it’s easier after all, right? But when ex-Scientologists, even when long-term and well-known names within the past Scientology community, start attacking Ron rather than his technology, know well that they are taking an ARC breaky, vengeful, and easy line of attack.

I wish they had gotten the full case gain that they had claimed in their Success Stories. But their loss is theirs, not Ron’s. Most of us had real successes.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

In this essay Bruce C as writer, Lana Mitchell as editor, and Independent Scientology Milestone Two demonstrate not only their sadly impaired and defective reasoning ability, but also provide an example of Bulverism that would make C.S. Lewis proud. They assume, without evidence, analysis or rational thought that Hana Eltringham and the recent critic on Mike Rinder's blog are wrong, then explain why they are so wrong -- e.g., "ARC-X revenge," "MWH phenomena" (i.e., missed withhold phenenomena), that they fall in the "huge gray-zone between PTS and SP," or they "promote[d] their ser-fac personages over actual case gain."

Nowhere do Bruce C as writer, Lana Mitchell as editor, and Independent Scientology Milestone Two address on the merits the emperical observations and arguments by Hana Eltringham and the recent critic on Mike Rinder's blog. Indeed, they are such non-confront cowards that they won't even link to them. Instead, Bruce C as writer, Lana Mitchell as editor, and Independent Scientology Milestone Two assume they are right, and deign to explain why Hana Eltringham and the recent critic on Mike Rinder's blog.

In my experience, this defective and logically fallacious form of argument is common not only within Independent Scientology, but also also within the broader world of Scientology, whether represented by the corporate Church of Scientology, Indies, or the Freezone. They all, in my experience, assume without evidence, thought or analysis that any criticism or negative empirical observations are wrong, and then mistakenly think it is a valid form of argument to only provide the psychological or "case" reasons why you have such mistaken beliefs.
 

uncover

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

.....
They all, in my experience, assume without evidence, thought or analysis that any criticism or negative empirical observations are wrong,.....
No, no, no..... They don't "assume" anything, because they "know" everything..... Simply because "Ron" said it, therefore it must be total "knowingness".....THEIR "knowingness".....
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

***snipped***


Nowhere do Bruce C as writer, Lana Mitchell as editor, and Independent Scientology Milestone Two address on the merits the emperical observations and arguments by Hana Eltringham and the recent critic on Mike Rinder's blog. Indeed, they are such non-confront cowards that they won't even link to them.


Exactly!
But they attack the critics instead of confronting to search for the truth...

This is why I said few weeks ago that there is almost no chance that any kid who might have been (as a given possibility ) sexually molested by the guru will never tell publicly...he\she would be right away [STRIKE]destroyed[/STRIKE] fair gamed....judged make guilty and sentenced!

May truth never prevail..nor the house of cards shaken...
Motto of indies KSW
 

Knows

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientology.

Bulverism is a logical fallacy.

"For anyone who has experienced personal gains from L. Ron Hubbard’s works and writings and is unwilling to be denied their value it can be abrading, or at least questioning, to read popular smears against the founder of Scientology. The latest I have seen was written by Hana Eltringham, a well-known and once-respected name in the Sea Org in which she accuses Ron of “being always right.” :whistling:

Hana does not "accuse" Ron of always being right. Ron was always RIGHT!



 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

Lana is either incredibly, painfully stupid or has been so totally deprived of anything resembling an education that she truly believes L. Ron's "ARC triangle" is mankind's greatest achievement.

Boy and girls, this is what happens to a person when the only books they ever cracked were written by a 7th rate sci-fi hack con man and the only education they receive came from the same foul bullshit filled sewer.

It still amazes me how Lana and her ilk eat Hubbard's wet rancid turds and and then swear its filet mignon. It just proves they have never tasted anything but wet rancid turds and therefore believe it's the finest food mankind has ever eaten.
 

anonomog

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

:whistling:..Achy breaky ARC.....:whistling:

:arrow:

So the thing that is most upsetting about LRH is that he is accused of "being right"?
Never mind the misogyny, extreme child abuse, abuse, lies, drunkenness, drug use, lack of compassion, lack of empathy, cowardice- running from the law, pushing wife under the bus...oh, the list is endless.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

Why is "being right" the button for a frothy? Is it because out of all of the accusations, that one is seen as the easiest one to disprove?
 

scooter

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

It's just another bunch of religious fanatics who know that the only way to Nirvana/Paradise/Heaven/OT is to obey the Sacred Texts and shun the non-believers. This is just more of the same that Millstone Too have been spruiking for their brief existence as Keepers of the True Faith.

The Guru/Prophet/Mankind's Greatest Friend have laid out the Path to The Land of Rivers of Honey and Virgins/Choirs of Angels/Cause over Matter, Energy, Space, Time, Thought and Life. The True Believer knows this with a Faith that Passes all Understanding. The Sacred Rituals rely on Belief - Hubbard even admitted as much on one of the Student Hat tapes where He said that Dianetics doesn't work unless it's done by a Dianeticist.

The poor fools/True Believers/Defenders of the Faith will always see the world/Physical Universe as a battle between Good and Evil with them on the Right Side. Two-value logic - With Us v. Against Us, Right v. Wrong, OTs v. SPs.

Millstone Too are following in footsteps of thousands of years of Faith trumps Observation because it feels better rather than is the right or ethical thing to do. I'm just amazed that they have been able to keep their particular brand of crazy alive for so long without succumbing to reality.

But I guess Faith is a powerful hallucinogen if one is determined to keep taking it in huge doses regardless of the obvious health risks.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Independent Scientology Milestone Two Bulverism Uber Alles!

Independent Scientology Milestone Two Bulverism Uber Alles!

Some examples from the comments.

https://milestonetwo.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/vengeful-attacks/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

scatjappers says:
May 28, 2016 at 4:15 pm

[SNIP]

This “Hana Eltringham” person who denies all gains from OTIII, is either lying, ran too light to get any gains, ran the level incorrectly, or something of the sort. She’s trying to “dead-agent” the Tech. Fact is, we all know the Tech works. So saying it didn’t only makes a huge statement about the person saying it. At that point, I would stop reading what they wrote and ignore every other public utterance of theirs.

[SNIP]

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Manhattan Tom says:
May 28, 2016 at 10:25 pm

Wow! Incredible actually.

I also stopped reading the entheta as it just distracted.

And I realize that when a person commits an overt they must minimize the object against which they’ve commited the overt. Scn
and LRH have such a potential for good that the overt becomes rather huge.
Reply


Chris Black says:
May 28, 2016 at 10:29 pm

“Scn and LRH have such a potential for good that the overt becomes rather huge.

Exactly!
Reply

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Manhattan Tom says:
May 30, 2016 at 1:53 am

I think it is a mistake to assume that there was something major that flipped some of these long time SO members. No – I think it is the spiral of overts and withholds and justifications that sinks the person to the point of no return. And on top of that, many not being trained, don’t see and realize that they are simply being the effect of their own banks and aberrations. It is a gradient scale. Just as there is no “one-shot-clear” or OT, they did not fall in one shot either. “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire”, is not a basic truth. Where there are motivators there are prior overts I believe is a workable truth.

Overt/Motivator tech does have application here. Having committed an overt, and lacking a motivator for it, one actually creates a false time track to justify their feelings and attitudes and overts.

[SNIP]


* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
 

Chris Shelton

Patron with Honors
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

Not to be too rude, but seriously, what is Milestone Two but a small group of maybe 20 people tops who perpetually circle jerk each other about their group delusions? They are the actual fringe of the fringe: the tiny minority of "ex's" who cannot face the fact that they are ex's and so have to keep reassuring each other that they were always right for worshiping at the altar of Hubbard.

For us, their rants serve as an object lesson in almost every logical fallacy and cognitive delusion in the book and that's about all they are good for. This thread is useful in pointing out one of many such fallacies. It's so very sad to watch them but I don't think they are ever going to snap out of it so they may as well be useful in some capacity. I can't really find it in myself to laugh at them anymore. The joke has gone on for far too long.
 

George Layton

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

"For anyone who has experienced personal gains from L. Ron Hubbard’s works and writings and is unwilling to be denied their value" has not come to the realization that the experience of their gain is something other then what hubbard defined it as in his scientology philosophy and that the experience gained in no way obligates the person to scientology or any representative thereof.
 

TheSneakster

More Skeptical Than You
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

Hana Eltringham was a Sea Org member for over 20 years, captained two of Hubbard's ships and was appointed Deputy Commodore.

You forgot to mention that (as Apollo MAA) she is the one who actually carried out the child abuse, overboardings and other punishments that she constantly accuses Ron Hubbard of having ordered during 1968 and later. :duh:

This is a little detail all her fanboys have apparently swept under their collective mental rugs. If you all truly believe Ron Hubbard was such a cold-hearted cruel tyrant (at least during that period), what makes any of you think he would have given those positions to anyone who was not equally cold-hearted and cruel (at the time) ? :no:

Hana's PR efforts to retcon herself into some kind of tragic heroine appear to have been quite successful amongst the critic community. Don't expect the Independent Scientologist(no tm) community to be equally duped. We have at least a few Apollo veterans from that time period amongst our numbers. :eyeroll:

Michael A. Hobson
Independent Scientologist
email: [email protected]
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mhobson2011
 

anonomog

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

You forgot to mention that (as Apollo MAA) she is the one who actually carried out the child abuse, overboardings and other punishments that she constantly accuses Ron Hubbard of having ordered during 1968 and later. :duh:

This is a little detail all her fanboys have apparently swept under their collective mental rugs. If you all truly believe Ron Hubbard was such a cold-hearted cruel tyrant (at least during that period), what makes any of you think he would have given those positions to anyone who was not equally cold-hearted and cruel (at the time) ? :no:

Hana's PR efforts to retcon herself into some kind of tragic heroine appear to have been quite successful amongst the critic community. Don't expect the Independent Scientologist(no tm) community to be equally duped. We have at least a few Apollo veterans from that time period amongst our numbers. :eyeroll:

Michael A. Hobson
Independent Scientologist
email: [email protected]
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mhobson2011

Okay, and what were these Indie Apollo veterans doing while the children were in the chain-locker? Launching dramatic rescues were they?
Were they protesting the overboarding and refusing to participate or watch?

The reality is all adults on the boat had a moral duty to intervene, yet like the participants of the Milgram experiment, very few did anything against the leader. It is a human response it seems. However whether Hana did or did not imprison children, they did not stop it, so they don't particularly have a high moral ground to stand on to criticise her, do they?
 

Elronius of Marcabia

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

It's just another bunch of religious fanatics who know that the only way to Nirvana/Paradise/Heaven/OT is to obey the Sacred Texts and shun the non-believers. This is just more of the same that Millstone Too have been spruiking for their brief existence as Keepers of the True Faith.

The Guru/Prophet/Mankind's Greatest Friend have laid out the Path to The Land of Rivers of Honey and Virgins/Choirs of Angels/Cause over Matter, Energy, Space, Time, Thought and Life. The True Believer knows this with a Faith that Passes all Understanding. The Sacred Rituals rely on Belief - Hubbard even admitted as much on one of the Student Hat tapes where He said that Dianetics doesn't work unless it's done by a Dianeticist.

The poor fools/True Believers/Defenders of the Faith will always see the world/Physical Universe as a battle between Good and Evil with them on the Right Side. Two-value logic - With Us v. Against Us, Right v. Wrong, OTs v. SPs.

Millstone Too are following in footsteps of thousands of years of Faith trumps Observation because it feels better rather than is the right or ethical thing to do. I'm just amazed that they have been able to keep their particular brand of crazy alive for so long without succumbing to reality.

But I guess Faith is a powerful hallucinogen if one is determined to keep taking it in huge doses regardless of the obvious health risks.

well said :thumbsup:

The knowing of the knowers of knowingness is really fascinating and almost admirable, the dedication and
devout single mindedness and protecting the holy of holys "The Tech" "The Force" 'The Spirit"
"The Banner" "The Cross" there is obviously a very strong and innate desire tapped into like a
strong moving river or a salmon driven by a command to sacrifice every last breathe and energy
to spawn the next generation !!

It's hypnotic and powerful and the sirens call, the battlecry that makes sane men run directly at
the enemies bayonets forego the love of family and futurein the "Name of ( ) matters not what
is entered in the parenthesis only the connection the contact the idea thats says this is worth sacrificing
all for, and that has been the power and manipulation of tyrants and pirates and conmen down
throught the ages, religion and high priest and priestess.

I do believe men will someday reach a point of maturity that fills that gap and makes it no longer available
to power hungry desperate and blackhearted men who filll their hearts with only one idea worth sacrificing
all (Power)

So I am hopeful for what might be, with a small caveat.

Trust in Allah but tie up your camel :thumbsup::coolwink:
 

uncover

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

Hana Eltringham.....
You forgot to mention that (as Apollo MAA) she is the one who actually ...... blah blah blah

blah blah blah....

blah blah blah....

(obtrusive self-promotion not supported)
What does that change on the proven fact that El Con Hubbard was a greedy, soziopathic, pathological lying Con Man ? And that Hubbardites who still rehash his insane vomit are obviously in need of some professional help ?
 
Last edited:

George Layton

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

All of it revolves around indisputable ideas that hubbard put forth.

In a song by Bob Dylan, Every Grain of sand, There is one verse, "I hear the ancient footsteps, like the motion of the sea. Sometimes I look there's someone there, other times it's only me." If you take one sentence of the verse, "Sometimes I look there's someone there, other times it's only me.", what does the last portion of the sentence, "other times it's only me.", mean?

Is it that he does not have someone there for him at those times? Can it mean he imagines that he heard something at those times? Is he saying that at those times he is filled with such self pity that he won't acknowledge that someone is there? Is it that when he looks he see himself there? Can it be that at those times that he is so absorbed in his journey that he doesn't even realize there is someone there? Something else?


One part, of one line, of one song, from one person and there can be so many possibilities.

Are there those that do understand exactly, with no question about it what so ever, what is being said in that portion of that song by that person? And in that knowledge is there no wiggle room, no misunderstanding, no room for the endless possibilities of life. No. To have absolute, fixed, understood truths, put forth by people that have found a way to understand completely each single meaning to every question, not just their own, but everyone's. Have they really found that insight to ,all that is, or is it only them?
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

All of it revolves around indisputable ideas that hubbard put forth.

In a song by Bob Dylan, Every Grain of sand, There is one verse, "I hear the ancient footsteps, like the motion of the sea. Sometimes I look there's someone there, other times it's only me." If you take one sentence of the verse, "Sometimes I look there's someone there, other times it's only me.", what does the last portion of the sentence, "other times it's only me.", mean?

Is it that he does not have someone there for him at those times? Can it mean he imagines that he heard something at those times? Is he saying that at those times he is filled with such self pity that he won't acknowledge that someone is there? Is it that when he looks he see himself there? Can it be that at those times that he is so absorbed in his journey that he doesn't even realize there is someone there? Something else?


One part, of one line, of one song, from one person and there can be so many possibilities.

Are there those that do understand exactly, with no question about it what so ever, what is being said in that portion of that song by that person? And in that knowledge is there no wiggle room, no misunderstanding, no room for the endless possibilities of life. No. To have absolute, fixed, understood truths, put forth by people that have found a way to understand completely each single meaning to every question, not just their own, but everyone's. Have they really found that insight to ,all that is, or is it only them?


Interesting!

For fun I sometimes look up various great hit rock/pop tunes (Beatles, etc) to see what the hell the song/lyrics are about and it is usually astoundingly different than imagined. There are some really cool websites that are dedicated to the meaning behind the words. . .

I did a quick search for various interpretations of that line, "...sometimes I look there's someone there, other times it's only me." [Googled: "meaning of lyrics, bob dylan,every grain of sand"]. A whole bunch of sites popped up, many of which were densely packed with arcane religious (Christian) references to Dylan's beliefs.

So the quick answer is that I have no idea (for sure) what he meant. But if I go for the simple/obvious meaning it would be that he is talking about the ancient and profoundly held beliefs about God, Jesus et al from the Bible. And that he alternates between the feeling/certainty that he is finding God/Jesus (what some devout Christians refer to as "...a personal relationship with Jesus") and the alternative---that there is nobody there speaking back to him or even hearing him. To wit, that all of the "evidence" of Jesus/God is just what he, himself, puts there. That he only finds himself (his own thoughts, self, et al) when he looks for the ultimate spiritual answers. That there isn't a live entity (God/Jesus) that he is interfacing with.

It's a provocative lyric to be sure.

Of course, I have no idea if what I am hypothecating as the "true meaning" comes from Bob Dylan or whether when I look for his true meaning "it's only me" that is making up these theories which have no slightest connection to Dylan's thoughts or intentions behind that tune.

By the way, when I have (previously) looked up famous songs for the ACTUAL ORIGIN OR MEANING, it is really hilarious, mind-blowing and fascinating how far off my own ideas about it have been for decades! LOL.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

...

I must confess that it threw me into a kind of personal confusion when I read Lana/Bruce C's essay. I wondered if perhaps they are right, that critics (myself included!) are sometimes overly harsh in condemning all things Hubbard or Scientology.

I actually felt pangs of guilt, considering all the abrasively edgy things I have posted on ESMB for the past 6-7 years. Perhaps (I considered) I should take an honest look at myself and admit that I often blindly attack attack (like a wounded animal) everything that is good about Scientology along with the bad.

But, then I caught myself and thought: "AM I MAD? Have I lost my mind?!!!" I began to doubt my own motivations and question whether my so-called comical "satire" was in reality just a poor excuse for an admittedly vicious personality trait that I have--wherein I "attack" others, much like the Scientologists that I decry.

My mind began to reel, rapidly vacillating back and forth between hating Scientology and the less misanthropic possibility that maybe Scientology does have some good--and maybe the Scientologists that I rhetorically assault on a daily basis are, in fact, some very good people who are hoping to help a cruel world. It struck me like a thunderbolt at one point--thinking "AM I PART OF THE CRUELTY?!" I momentarily felt shame but then I recovered quickly, laughing at the folly of getting sucked back into the "save the world" mindset again.

I was unable to sleep all night as both sides in my mind battled for supremacy.

Perhaps I should recognize Scientologists' basic altruism? Or is all that beneficence just sleazy subterfuge?

Back and forth, back and forth. My mind and most cherished ideas seemed to be crumbling before my very eyes.

I had no idea what to do. So I re-read Lana's and Bruce's article. And suddenly one line rose above all others. It was as if the entire essay disappeared except that one sentence. It kept reverberating in my mind, again and again:

Vengeful attacks

Posted by Lana M.

May 28, 2016

by Bruce C

For anyone who has experienced personal gains from L. Ron Hubbard’s works and writings and is unwilling to be denied their value it can be abrading, or at least questioning, to read popular smears against the founder of Scientology. The latest I have seen was written by Hana Eltringham, a well-known and once-respected name in the Sea Org in which she accuses Ron of “being always right.”

There has also been a recent post to Mike Rinder’s blog from a person who reported to be a current online Scientologist and well trained Data Series Analyst (none of which is proved) who began an exposé with a brilliant situation analysis and in her findings proceeded to squat deliver diarrhea all over Hubbard’s face based on her personal opinions.

Note: I have not provided links here. If you are that interested in reading this tripe then feel free to search for it online. It’s there.

The first thing I consider about these is ARC-X revenge of some sort. Certainly, there is can be the MWH phenomena at work. There is also a huge gray-zone between PTS and SP, for better or worse an area never better delineated than in SOS.And yes, I am using Scientology acronyms, mainly because if you don’t know them, then you are not informed enough to make worthy comment about any of this.

Volumes can and should be written about Ron’s tech and how it has/could/can reach the world into which it was delivered. But its evaluation should always be viewed given the disparity (gap) between our present society and truth. It is one thing to bring about a truth that will set man free, but bring it against man’s long dedication to being man.

Let’s keep it simple here.
To me, the basic tech of the ARC Triangle, that alone, is miles above any tech ever seen on or considered on this planet, inclusive of Buddhism, Christianity, or any “ism” which has attempted to move mankind forward in a better direction; though each of them included the ARC principle somewhere and somehow in its tenets.

Yet, these writers attack. Hana for instance denies all case gain from OTIII. What she did not write about is her success stories and attestation from her auditing. The best (if not only) explanation here is that she lied.

And now we are to be believed by Hana. Right?

There is, unfortunately, a lesson to be carried on here. PC’s did evidently promote their ser-fac personages over actual case gain. That is a sad revelation but undeniably true. Also true is Ron’s statement in CS-Series 20 that he had originally underestimated the insanity of mankind.

When I consider the accomplishments that Ron envisioned for his technology, I consider them to be of a better perspective and confront of evil than I could have ever, or even now presume. Going into the unknown is sometimes, even with the best of study, unknown.

For what it’s worth, no, I do not always abide with Ron’s policies. I like to think he would respect me for that. For one, I was there in the Toronto’s so-called boom days, and even as an auditor in the HGC, I had to seek outside income (Canadian Socialism) in order to pay my rent and assuage my hunger. There is no way I can justify that lapse in HCO-PL’s even tho there was written about auditor pay bonuses.

Ron has written (sorry, paraphrased) that the first thing they do is attack him rather than his technology. How true, it’s easier after all, right? But when ex-Scientologists, even when long-term and well-known names within the past Scientology community, start attacking Ron rather than his technology, know well that they are taking an ARC breaky, vengeful, and easy line of attack.

I wish they had gotten the full case gain that they had claimed in their Success Stories. But their loss is theirs, not Ron’s. Most of us had real successes.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *



That one phrase alone suddenly and immediately resolved the entire conflict!

A wave of calm washed over my troubled mind, replace by the most extraordinary feeling of serenity. Because, I realized that anyone who was capable of viewing the world from such extraordinary altitude (to wit, looking downward "on this planet") surely has profound wisdom worthy of great respect.

I resolved that I should now begin to recognize the rightness of Scientologists and join them in their spiritual quest to rid the world of entheta, criticism and other anti-theta buzz killers.

I hereby announce that henceforth I shall not be posting any further critical, castigating nor absurd remarks on ESMB that incriminate and/or humiliate Scientologists[SUP]*[/SUP].








[SUP]*[/SUP] Because they are already doing such an outstanding job at this, I shall let them continue doing that themselves.
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
Re: The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientolog

Exactly!
But they attack the critics instead of confronting to search for the truth...

This is why I said few weeks ago that there is almost no chance that any kid who might have been (as a given possibility ) sexually molested by the guru will never tell publicly...he\she would be right away [STRIKE]destroyed[/STRIKE] fair gamed....judged make guilty and sentenced!

May truth never prevail..nor the house of cards shaken...
Motto of indies KSW

Hana Eltringham was a Sea Org member for over 20 years, captained two of Hubbard's ships and was appointed Deputy Commodore.

Yet these Milestone Two people are telling each other to ignore everything she says.

Well that's one way to make sure you never learn the truth.:duh:

https://scientology101.org/scientology-secrets/l-ron-hubbard/290-2/

You forgot to mention that (as Apollo MAA) she is the one who actually carried out the child abuse, overboardings and other punishments that she constantly accuses Ron Hubbard of having ordered during 1968 and later. :duh:

This is a little detail all her fanboys have apparently swept under their collective mental rugs. If you all truly believe Ron Hubbard was such a cold-hearted cruel tyrant (at least during that period), what makes any of you think he would have given those positions to anyone who was not equally cold-hearted and cruel (at the time) ? :no:

Hana's PR efforts to retcon herself into some kind of tragic heroine appear to have been quite successful amongst the critic community. Don't expect the Independent Scientologist(no tm) community to be equally duped. We have at least a few Apollo veterans from that time period amongst our numbers. :eyeroll:

Michael A. Hobson
Independent Scientologist
email: [email protected]
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mhobson2011


Hana the liar ?????
Falsely accusing LRH ????
Predictable - predictability !

In this video, Hana Eltringham is genuinely wide opened about what happened on the ships especially with LRH behavior and paranoid\cruel moods , his true intent with Mission into Time, the circumstances he established the RPF and his true motives he himself voiced about those topics. She describes the very cruel LRH orders about coerced punishements and the conduct of police polygraphed inquisitions when he was mentally deteriorating.(deeply paranoid)

Well, as Sneakster said, We still have at least a few Apollo veterans from that time period, and the ones I've heard (video) or read ALL CORROBORATED what Hana said and exposed in the few topics she addressed. :coolwink:

She is granted credibitily and reliability in exe community + she is another courageous veteran, who had been totally devoted To LRH but had the courage to face the obvious, leave the cult and the mindset + exposed herself to be ''fair gamed\dead agent'' for speaking out the truth (LRH black pr) :thumbsup:

KSW INDIE MOTO : May truth never prevail...

To this day, critics like her..who knows ,1st hand, the sensitive stuff about LRH, are still fair gamed within the KSW indie moronic mindset community - which is a true living reminder, for me, of how we are lucky this lunatic movement will never expand in taking over the planet..on this planet...:unsure:

It worth watching it to get the idea of who was LRH and how humanitarian and generous he was (depsite indies find it detestable with every fibre of their scieno brain /U]) Her saying can be corroborated with Sharone Stainforth records here and there and by other veterans.

Now Let's see if only one stands up to assert Hana lies about LRH (and the real scene on the ship according to Dr Hubbard orders) and can make the records straight

This is what she deserves :hattip::hattip::hattip:
and exes will certainly voice their concern for this low ball on hana
[video]https://youtu.be/qw-At2NNyZo[/video]
 
Last edited:
Top