The effectiveness of Freedom magazine

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
Comment from Marty's blog on the effectiveness of Freedom magazine:
Jack // June 22, 2010 at 11:00 pm

I personally started “waking up” upon receipt of the “DM edition” of Freedom Mag. I skimmed through it on first look. It just seemed so bizarre! I hadn’t a clue who “Kingpin” et al. were, nor was I even that interested.

Being relatively active online, I kept coming up against references to some mysterious “Truth Rundown” series but, again, I wasn’t really that interested. I’ve come up against so much crap in my time regarding both Scientology and the CoS that I dismissed it as more of the same.

A couple of months passed. I can’t remember why, but I randomly pulled out Freedom and thought I’d read it properly (without being too coarse, I may even have just wanted something to read whilst on the toilet…!) Anyways, whatever the reason, I read it. Cover to cover.

When I finished reading it (and remember I had absolutely NO clue what any of this was about or in reference to) all I wanted to do was find out! (It was puerile! I couldn’t believe this was Freedom (a mag I actually had a lot of respect for). The mere fact that juvenile “nicknames” were used rather than actual names was especially lame). And so I thought “oh, what the hell!”, and LOOKED.

I eventually found the “Truth Rundown” site and started reading (and watching).

What KEPT me reading, in hindsight, was the fact that there was NO criticism of LRH, no tired, hysterical accusation of “brainwashing”, no OTIII hoo har, etc. etc. This was not about Scientology. This was something else…

Also note, sadly, the at least initial sensitivity of any criticism of Hubbard. Criticism of the current COS -- OK. Criticism of management -- OK. Criticism of DM -- OK. Criticism of LRH == non-confront, ignore.

WWP Thread: The effectiveness of Freedom magazine

/
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
Jack on Marty's Site said:
<snip> What KEPT me reading, in hindsight, was the fact that there was NO criticism of LRH, no tired, hysterical accusation of “brainwashing”, no OTIII hoo har, etc. etc. <snip>
Amazing how effective that 'implant' is.. I'm not even out to critizise 'Jack'.. But hells bells! - Total and instant rejection on any critizism of Hubbard; Immediate denial of 'brainwashing'; And refusal to hear anything about OTIII.. Making it a moral issue too..

Plonk! Facepalm!

Hubbard was an asshole! Scientology bloody well IS 'brainwashing'! And OTIII is NUTS!

:duh:
 

Ulf K. Maier

Patron Meritorious
"Criticism"

Originally Posted by Jack on Marty's Site
<snip> What KEPT me reading, in hindsight, was the fact that there was NO criticism of LRH, no tired, hysterical accusation of “brainwashing”, no OTIII hoo har, etc. etc. <snip>


"Criticism" in $cientology is BAD and heavily frowned-upon.

If someone is "critical", s/he has "overts" and "withholds" (evil acts and their subsequent obfuscation), which must be revealed to the group. If one is a "critic", that a LOT worse, and may get one a Declare Order. I mean, how can one have "critical thinking", if the word "critical" is anathema?

These people are in heavy FEAR, always worried about the perceptions other $cientologists will have of them, not to mention the "Ethics Officer" :omg:

It's funny how $cientology, by changing the meaning of just one little word, can totally stop the thought processes of its members, and make them "reactive". I thought the stated goal of "Clear" was to end that kind of thing...

SHOW US A "CLEAR". I maintain there are none to be found, anywhere. I invite anyone to prove otherwise. (Can't be done).
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
SHOW US A "CLEAR". I maintain there are none to be found, anywhere. I invite anyone to prove otherwise. (Can't be done).


Perfectly Clear:

album-perfectly-clear.jpg
 

FinallyFree

Gold Meritorious Patron
I picture copies of the Freedom mag on davie's bedside, next to the lotion, pages stuck together. He has to love a mag that loves him as much as he loves himself.
 

xseaorguk

Patron Meritorious
criticism in $cn

criticism in $cn = natter

means you have overts on that person you are criticising etc:yes:
 

Lurker5

Gold Meritorious Patron
What is ?

What is facepalm? Seen it twice in last few days - and have no idea, never heard it before. What is, please? Thanks :hattip:
 

GreyWolf

Gold Meritorious Patron
Originally Posted by Jack on Marty's Site
<snip> What KEPT me reading, in hindsight, was the fact that there was NO criticism of LRH, no tired, hysterical accusation of “brainwashing”, no OTIII hoo har, etc. etc. <snip>

"Criticism" in $cientology is BAD and heavily frowned-upon.

If someone is "critical", s/he has "overts" and "withholds" (evil acts and their subsequent obfuscation), which must be revealed to the group. If one is a "critic", that a LOT worse, and may get one a Declare Order. I mean, how can one have "critical thinking", if the word "critical" is anathema?

These people are in heavy FEAR, always worried about the perceptions other $cientologists will have of them, not to mention the "Ethics Officer" :omg:

It's funny how $cientology, by changing the meaning of just one little word, can totally stop the thought processes of its members, and make them "reactive". I thought the stated goal of "Clear" was to end that kind of thing...

SHOW US A "CLEAR". I maintain there are none to be found, anywhere. I invite anyone to prove otherwise. (Can't be done).

So this means that Marty, Mike, et-al have O/w's on DM?
 
Top