The final word on BTs

[Vinaire]

Now you have trimmed down the subject of Scientology to the Axioms, etc. only.

This type of self-deception accomplishes little.

So much has been learned and now you and Pierre and encouraging others to go backwards.

Well, speaking only for myself, I'm not going backwards.

You and he have much to learn.

Preach less and listen more.

What is there about the statement: "the 'Emperor Xenu/Commodore Hubbard Bridge' has been discredited" don't you understand?

And I noticed the statement about the meaning of "Standard tech" (above), and, IMO, it's usded mainly as PR.

More PR is not needed.

I find the Axioms of Scientology to be very sound. An MU on Axiom # 1 will propagate through all other axioms.

.

 

[MarkWI]

I have just looked at the first Class VIII tape transcript briefly, and I can see that LRH was losing his patience with those who could not duplicate and apply his standard tech. I think that this was the period when "over boardings" on the ship took place.

This makes me conclude the following.

(1) LRH was becoming short on patience.

(2) LRH was in a hurry and felt that Study Tech was too slow a route.

(3) He believed that there was not enough necessity level among the Flag internees to want to duplicate and apply, and that the environment had to be made dangerous to bring up the necessity level.

So, LRH was always applying handlings other than what he had wrapped up in his research. He was continually experimenting (squirreling) while pitching the standard tech.

.

It is something that puzzles me. The hurry.

When I was in the SO the high ranked missioner was motivating us to work day and night by telling us that "There are beings out there that aren't waiting for us" meaning that something bad was going to happen and we had to clear the planet fast to get ready for it.

Earlier in Dianetics the hurry was because of the atomic bomb.

Later Captain Bill Robertson was expecting Marcabian invasion anytime.

As reported in 'Bare Faced Messiah', Doreen Smith, one of LRH messengers in late seventies, told about reading some letter Quentin wrote to LRH: 'Out of curiosity, I pulled the letters out and read a couple,' she confessed. 'It sounded like Quentin had gone crazy. He was talking about people coming from outer space and what we were going to do about it and how he knew the Marcabs were coming every five thousand years to check on our development.'

Space opera aside Maybe LRH was expecting to drop his body soon, thus the hurry in completing the relay of information to his students.

LRH said in one of his training films (Tone Scale or Comm cycle in auditing) something like "you have to confront the world and the people in it" to a character that lost his temper.
Maybe he was just PTS, losing confront.

But I'm shooting in the dark here as I was not there nor I did listen the tapes.

Alan was there and I do value his opinions very much. Thank you.

M
__________________

BTW: Very happy to have you on this board Pierre! Welcome!

 

[Veda]

I have no idea what you are referring to when you say 'Emperor Xenu/Commodore Hubbard Bridge"? It comes across to me as a prejudicial slur. It invites no further understanding. You have alluded to finding something better several times. Please tell us, what is it? Suing RTC for fun and profit? Playing victim? Why are you withholding your story from here, despite your numerous postings?

Hubbard either:

Went bonkers around the time that he began to call himself "Source" and "The Commodore."

Or he, around that time, decided to - over a roughly ten year period - begin to implement what may have been his long range plan all along: of applying and institutionalizing the non-medical basics of the 64 page booklet that he called "The Brainwashing Manual."

Take your pick, or perhaps it's a bit of both: Went bonkers, or had an ulterior motive, or a combination of both.

And the "tech" that he developed after that time is the "tech" that you cherish the most, and also - for PR reasons - attempt to minimize, or even deny.

You can't reform the subject because you can't confront the subject.

 

[Veda]

I find the Axioms of Scientology to be very sound. An MU on Axiom # 1 will propagate through all other axioms.

.

BUT the Axioms are not the subject of Scientology.

And I'm referring to L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, not Vinaire's Scientology.

 

[mike]

Ya … but isn't IFA one of those "Preserve, Protect, Promote Standard Tech” groups?

So then let me get this straight! You want folks to read every word of hubbo, then be the experts on telling them what not of hubbo to think, then use correction lists on them so they understand what exactly has occurred and does occurs in present time?

Golly Gee, Ron sure was brilliant to develop those “standard tech” correction lists , wasn't he!
__________________
Making Waves and Popping Qwiffs Since the Dawn of Time!

Your comment appears more cynical than helpful.

I don't know about "one of those groups" but the purpose of the IFA IS to preserve. protect and promote the original technology of LRH.

If LRH had not developed the technology we would not even be here discussing it and related subjects. There would be NO ex-scientologists message board.

The basic fact is that the technology works. It may not be perfect and it may not be the be all or end all but it works, and that is all LRH stated of it and all that we ask of it. Other things, technologies, philosophies, thoughts, ideas etc may or may not work or produce a resulted result but the technology LRH developed works.

It is subjective and not a matter of proof therefore. It is not a case of read it or else or read it and accept it. Only a congenital idiot does that. It is a case of observation and doing.

The comment on "gee, Ron was great...." is a sarcastic and, dare I say it, 1.1 comment and does not become you.

 

[Vinaire]

BUT the Axioms are not the subject of Scientology.

And I'm referring to L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, not Vinaire's Scientology.

I don't think you are talking about L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology. You are talking about Veda's Scientology.

Scientology is what one makes it. It did not start with Hubbard.

.

 

[Veda]

I don't think you are talking about L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology. You are talking about Veda's Scientology.

Scientology is what one makes it. It did not start with Hubbard.

.

No it is not. It's a subject that exists in the physical universe.

It can be examined, studied, understood - including many of the confidential writings (and I don't mean OT levels) that you'd rather not think about.

There is a subject.

It's not overwhelming, even though it may seem that way at first. It can be known and understood.

Apparently, its Founder intended it - and designed it - not to be fully known or fully understood by those most under its influence.

Scientology was designed as an enlightenment coated mind-trap.

If you want to make it something else, then good for you. That shows that you're a good and decent fellow. But it becomes YOUR version of Scientology, and is no longer Hubbard's version.

It's not "Scientology" anymore.

And Vinaire, I've been studying - and unearthing - the earlier origins of the subject of Scientology for over twenty years.

Force yourself to read the links that I've been posting.

And give yourself some time to think things over.

 

[Div6]

Hubbard either:

Went bonkers around the time that he began to call himself "Source" and "The Commodore."

Or he, around that time, decided to - over a roughly ten year period - begin to implement what may have been his long range plan all along: of applying and institutionalizing the non-medical basics of the 64 page booklet that he called "The Brainwashing Manual."

Take your pick, or perhaps it's a bit of both: Went bonkers, or had an ulterior motive, or a combination of both.

And the "tech" that he developed after that time is the "tech" that you cherish the most, and also - for PR reasons - attempt to minimize, or even deny.

You can't reform the subject because you can't confront the subject.

I have no desire to "reform" the subject.
(Strike 1)
I don't "cherish" the tech. Use it or don't. (And that comes from TR 0, which predates the era you are constantly referring to.)
(Strike 2)
You appear to be using the old GO "no answer" tech. Which is the "tech" you seem stuck in and appear to use the most (Black PR)....is this your "better tech?"
(Strike 3)

 

[Div6]

No it is not. It's a subject that exists in the physical universe.

It can be examined, studied, understood - including many of the confidential writings (and I don't mean OT levels) that you'd rather not think about.

There is a subject.

It's not overwhelming, even though it may seem that way at first. It can be known and understood.

Apparently, its Founder intended it - and designed it - not to be fully known or fully understood by those most under its influence.

Scientology was designed as an enlightenment coated mind-trap.

If you want to make it something else, then good for you. That shows that you're a good and decent fellow. But it becomes YOUR version of Scientology, and is no longer Hubbard's version.

It's not "Scientology" anymore.

And Vinaire, I've been studying - and unearthing - the earlier origins of the subject of Scientology for over twenty years.

Force yourself to read the links that I've been posting.

And give yourself some time to think things over.

So YOU ARE Jerry Armstrong!

 

[Vinaire]

No it is not. It's a subject that exists in the physical universe.

It can be examined, studied, understood - including many of the confidential writings (and I don't mean OT levels) that you'd rather not think about.

There is a subject.

It's not overwhelming, even though it may seem that way at first. It can be known and understood.

Apparently, its Founder intended it - and designed it - not to be fully known or fully understood by those most under its influence.

Scientology was designed as an enlightenment coated mind-trap.

If you want to make it something else, then good for you. That shows that you're a good and decent fellow. But it becomes YOUR version of Scientology, and is no longer Hubbard's version.

It's not "Scientology" anymore.

And Vinaire, I've been studying - and unearthing - the earlier origins of the subject of Scientology for over twenty years.

Force yourself to read the links that I've been posting.

And give yourself some time to think things over.

I can see off the bat that you are assuming a lot about me. If you take the same approach in your analysis of the subject of Scientology, then that confirms for me that you are way off the mark.

You are looking at only that part which you want to see and ignoring the other part which you don't want to see. So, your analysis is quite biased.

You disappoint me.

.

 

[Vinaire]

So YOU ARE Jerry Armstrong!

I remember Jerry Armstrong. His young face is in front of my eyes. I hope he is doing well.

.

 

[NonScio]

Some questions about BTs, their logistics, etc.

To what do the BTs attach, the body, or the thetan?

If to the body, do they follow the genetic line? Are they passed
on by the parents?

If to the Thetan, do the same BTs follow the Thetan around, lifetime
to lifetime? Once the thetan gets "incorporated", how do the BTs know
where to go? Which one(s) goes to the knee? Which one to the stomach?
Who gets the L3 Lumbar disc? The liver, the pancreas, the kidneys, the big
toe etc? Are they "assigned" their posts by the big thetan, or is it a
free for all, quickest BTs getting the cushiest posts?

 

[Alanzo]

No offense taken because I follow neither.

The bridge, the way you seem to describe it (or as other using your characterization have done), violates the fundamental tenets of Scientology. In Scientologese it is called call it A=A=A. In non-scientologese it is called Primitive associative reasoning.

It is necessary to read beyond propaganda to get a true insight of things.

It is clear that not everyone wants to do that. If it were, we would already be living in a perfect world.

Pierre

How does that Bridge violate the fundamental tenets of Scientology?

Can you provide one or two examples?

 

[Alanzo]

Your comment seem to indicate you are not reading my posts at all, but have already set your mind that I am a robotized Zombie, incapable of judgment or reason and that I am likely drooling at the mouth repeating mindlessly a preset of Hubbard Mantras, like someone who has recently been lobotomized.

Sanity starts with the ability to recognize that difference between things that are identical, similar or different.

It starts by refraining from making uninformed judgments because they are by definition the root of prejudice and/or ignorance. Perhaps as the result of maturity, I have reached at least that ability. Unfortunately not everyone has.

Standard Tech is akin to the concept of best Practice and proper Quality control such as those found in Six Sigma. So you say it is wrong. 95% of succesful businessmen will disagree with that including the 5 Fortune 500 companies I have worked for in the last 10 years, as succesful professional...

Standard tech (aka Best practice) appeals to professionals, successful businesmen, millionaires and succesful accomplishers. A significant part of people I counsel or are on my lines have never been in a Church. Some of them have never heard of Scientology, yet your prejudice make you already call them zombified Churchies...

Standard Engineering Tech is what make cars win at Indy 500 and F-18s fly at supersonic speed. Those who do not believe in Standard Engineering, just like those who deny Newton laws or Archimedes principles hack away in their home building disfunctional Anti-gravity machines and flying saucers who never get off the ground.

Pierre Ethier

P.S. to be sure my post is not misunderstood. I am not familiar with what Alan has been doing, and therefore not in any position to comment about it at the moment but as an original Class VIII he is someone I would definitely listen to.

None of the comments in my post are addressed to what he has been doing

Get the arrogance of this post.

How disappointing.

 

[Alanzo]

Dear Zinj, You describe yourself as a Master of Inval and Eval, and everywhere I see you posting you are literally foaming at the mouth about Scientology.

Isn't that asserting being right and making others wrong?

You must have a tremendous failed purpose, otherwise I am sure you would have been able to turn over the leaf and enjoy activities where you do not need to vent your hatred.

All you have succeeded in demonstrating in your post is that "Hell hath no Fury like a Being scorned by Scientology".

Pierre Ethier

I think we have a real, live Scientology Personality here!

Hey Pierre!

I have a thread you need to read!!

 

[Vinaire]

Get the arrogance of this post.

How disappointing.

Alanzo, please allow Pierre his space. He does have genuine accomplishments.

Let him get adjusted to the class and the standards here.

.

 

[Veda]

I can see off the bat that you are assuming a lot about me. If you take the same approach in your analysis of the subject of Scientology, then that confirms for me that you are way off the mark.

You are looking at only that part which you want to see and ignoring the other part which you don't want to see. So, your analysis is quite biased.

You disappoint me.

.

Oh it's not that bad. Look at the bright side. Now, you need not examine the links I recommended.

 

[Vinaire]

Oh it's not that bad. Look at the bright side. Now, you need not examine the links I recommended.

I think that I am aware of both pros and cons. My focus is simply on what is helpful, so that I can help myself and encourage others to help themselves.

Each of us have the spark of divine in us. It is very presumptuous to think that we have to help others. It is truly up to each person to help themselves. None of us should feel obligated that we have to make the other person's mind for him or her. That is the mistake Scientology organizations are making.

The data is there on Internet. People can read and make up there mind. You don't have to insist and expect that they should think like you do.

Live and let live.

.

 

[haiqu]

If Scientology is the Road to Sanity, as Hubbard also called it, how can it be explained that L Ron Hubbard, the man who developed this road to sanity, died alone, disconnected from every family member he ever had, and himself insane?

And while we're at it, why did Vincent Van Gogh commit suicide? Why did Jesus Christ allow himself to get nailed to a cross? Why did billionaire Howard Hughes spend most of his life as a recluse? Why did Mark Chapman shoot John Lennon?

The answers to these and other vital questions are sought by enquiring minds everywhere.

haiqu

 

[Vinaire]

Maybe Hubbard just got keyed it. He was smart but not immune.

.