What's new

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Looks as if my friend Jose (not really) Marti (a recent new user who appeared a while back) wants to engage in a duel over the issue I raised about the genocidal qualities of the cult. While I would rather not do a wholesale evisceration of his Scilon idealisms, since he is a friend from the old days, I can't as a point of honor refuse if he insists it must be done. Even though it scarcely seems a feminine thing, battling and winning, that is. Sigh. :biggrin:

I told him, if he dares, to begin a thread, make the first move. Hopefully he will spare himself since once he throws down the gauntlet I'd have no choice but to proceed.......

There are many intellectual battles I would not win. But this is not one of those battles....

About the only Spanish I know is that song;

"Yo soy un hombre sincero de donde crece la palma.." Great stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamera
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Claire, I was being literal. I was referring to those held physically captive who want to escape but are guarded. They have to be extracted. How I do not know. CoS will pull out all stops to make sure they are guarded. I also expressed that they are done. We will never see them again, good as dead.

I was not talking about all the brainwashed who work at CoS. I know that some of those leave each year, and the exes help them do it in various ways, by posting here, by providing other resources.

It is just my belief that Scientology Ethics tech is harmful, and that all Scn tech is harmful. I have clearly explained why in my three blog posts and in many forum postings on exscn.net (mostly on this thread) so I won't repeat the logic since it is long-winded. A link I posted above for Lakey (concerning LRH's view of ethics in relation to those who are below 2.0 and his conception of the Homo Novis as the superior race) is instructive to how even something as innocent as Ethics tech is tainted by LRH's successful Crowleyian "Spell" [Scientology].

In this I think that Atack is right. I saw on the thread that is live right now about the Dublin stream that he discusses the way that using Scientology terminology is part of the problem and he explains why and compares it to the language approved for citizens in the 1984 novel.

I view Scientology as a proto-Nazi type group, having similar master race pretensions and similar sort of 'hypnosis of the masses' pretensions. But their victims will not be just those who practice Judaism. Their victims will be anyone who rejects Scn, who is below 2.0 or who is antagonistic to them. Because Scn lacks global power and is only a local power, as I explained above in another post, that means that it can't go around incarcerating everyone who is below 2.0 or killing people. But if Scientology was in power, it would use it's "ethics" tech as a weapon. It WOULD DO IT. The quotes from LRH and the actions the CoS DOES DO convince me of that.

I think the main goal of exes should be to focus on freeing the slaves and NOT to focus on using tech. That was my point.

Scn ethics policy seems to have some inherent pitfalls even away from CofS. I mean, obviously, in CofS, it's a major clusterfuck. But outside of it, seems like it's still problematic even though I know I could take some of those ideas and use them. At best, it's mildly palliative in parts; at worst it's very bad.

I mainly don't see any problem with auditing or TRs- that sort of thing.

Some of the exes who help CofSers escape are Freezoners. The them and us attitude (that's not aimed at you, btw) I sometimes see is something I find distasteful.

Yes, I thought you were being literal about people being held. So was I.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Maria, Rajneeshpuram in Oregon was holding people as prisoners as well in 1984 (they also had armed response units and even helicopters, just as the SO does). They had to give that up, and if it can happen with them I don't see why it can't happen with Scientology as well.

Were they registered with the IRS as a tax exempt religion? That is the test. Once an organization is classified by the IRS as a religion in the USA, it is really hard to close them down or rule against them in law suits for that matter. The majority of lawsuits which COS has lost recently are about 20 lawsuits which have been litigated against Narconon. CofS made the mistake of lying (what else is new?) but in the Narconon cases the major lies came back to bite them. Their major lie was asserting over and over again that Narconon was not part of the COS.

In other words, COS removed their own religious cloaking from all of Narconon but ultimately that has lead to an attorney Ryan Hamilton winning settlements from COS in about 18 lawsuits. In addition to those he has a large number of newer law suits against them. Other Attorneys around the country are starting to follow Hamilton's lead.

As a side note, I wonder who DM blames for the idea of insisting that Narconon and COS mutually deny that they are affiliated in any way? It almost has to be DM's idea and he probably knows it so maybe on this big mistake he has no buddy to yell at or punch other than himself. That seems like poetic justice.
Lakey
 
Re: The Succession Plan for Scientology

Tony Ortega's Underground Bunker has an excellent article today concerning a Succession Plan for COS when DM's rein as its leader ends: I've often thought about this and made posts about it here but Tony Ortega doubts if DM will have a formal succession plan as the end of his reign approaches. Here are Tony Ortega's best guesses as to what might occur:

There is no succession plan in the bylaws of CSI/RTC/CST, and it’s hard to imagine how there could be any kind of transfer of power, as long as Miscavige is alive. So what’s going to happen?

I can think of some scenarios, but I tend not to prognosticate at my website. With Scientology, I’m continually surprised with how things turn out — which is why I enjoy reporting on it so much. The decision just this week by Judge James D. Whittemore to hand Scientology a total win in a federal fraud lawsuit that seemed to be going the other way is a good example. Guessing how that was going to turn out was a sucker’s game. That’s why I try not to put too much faith into any one particular outcome.

So, I caution you, these possible scenarios might turn out to be completely wrong. It’s just really hard to imagine what is going to happen. But I will try.

1. Miscavige is incapacitated. He’s only 54, so this seems somewhat unlikely, but let’s say he’s debilitated by a stroke or passes away. Who takes over? It’s completely unclear from both the bylaws of CSI/RTC/CST as well as who seems to be around him. At this point, it’s the lawyers (most of whom are not Scientologists) who prop up Miscavige. Would the lawyers quickly move someone like Marc Yager or Jenny Linson into the “Chairman of the Board” spot? Would the membership accept that? It’s really hard to know.

2. Miscavige removed by coup. This is something that a lot of angry former Scientology members want to see happen, as well as some still inside the church. But they base it on a bad misreading of the CSI/RTC/CST founding documents. As Denise Brennan explained to me before she died last year, when she helped Hubbard create those alphabet soup entities in 1981, they specifically designed them to make it appear that a system of trustees and boards of directors could select a new leader of Scientology. But it was all a sham, she explained. As long as Miscavige is alive and has the attorneys working for him, he will not be removed. Mike Rinder agrees with me on this score.

3. An outside force. To me, this seems the most likely. I have a feeling that the IRS or the FBI is biding its time, watching as Scientology continues to shrink and weaken. At some point, they’ll move in. And then Miscavige and Scientology will be caught up in court actions basically forever, and a succession will be a moot point.

Again, I reserve the right to be completely wrong about these scenarios, and the actual outcome may be a complete surprise — but that’s what makes it so fun to write about this nutty group.

Well, what do you think? Where do you think things are going to end up?.


Tony's article is really food for thought. Also, earlier in the article, he touches on LRH's succession plan, which he believes never actually existed. He believes that all LRH ever intended was to appoint Pat and Annie Broeker as Loyal Officers and then allow a battle for the leadership role to take place and then allow the chips to fall where they may.
Lakey
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The first really insane claim is that someone or something / everyone needs fixing. It is an illusion.

The second really insane claim is that LRH devised a fix that would work on anyone. It is his delusion and many took the bait.

That humans need to be spritually fixed, via technologies, is a lie.

The story arc of problem - solution is as old as the hills. People are afraid of dying, and they devise coping mechanisms (beliefs, philosophies) around denial. To deny we are finite. To deny that can't be fixed by humans. To deny that we will die. To deny that we are not the masters of our fate. This spawns the view of control as a form of coping. Taking control of our lives, fixing this or that. Create technologies to increase the coping capacity. The antithesis of control is letting go, acceptance, love. Love is not hypnosis. Love is not control. Love is not 'affinity'. Love is not Will.

For myself, I don't want to be 'fixed'. I know my limits. I accept myself as I am and am what I am. I know I don't control everything and definitely can't handle others. I know that for everything I understand and know I am an idiot in ten other areas. I don't want to handle others. I want to BE with others, love others, accept others. Enjoy their uniqueness. I don't want to change others or make them fit my world view. I like that everyone thinks differently and that there is not a cookie cutter from whence we all came.

Universal truth (the idea there is one, standard tech) is very idealistic and even necessary for Freudian stuff to make sense and continues to this day. (Scn is a weird branch of Freudian psychology and a pretty marginal one at that). But 'universal truth' does not exist the way people think. The only truth I can myself piece out is that each being, each soul is so unique that there can never be a cookie cutter. As Nietzsche said, there is no pattern for the leaf. Each leaf is a unique world. I know that we can get to know ourselves through experience. That our condition is to be here and that our highest happiness is love and sharing.

Placing our faith in some tech or another instead of in each other can leave us to exist as autonomous emotionless robots. Love and caring cannot be purchased. It cannot be handled. It cannot be processed into anyone. It arises naturally and spontaneously between humans. It can be nurtured and shared. It is always FREE. It is the big healer of human beings. LOVE will fix what a zillion hours of psychobabble metering can never touch. Love cannot make anyone into an uber mensch (superman). That superman was LRH's dream, to be a dark wizard with power. LRH chose knowledge and power. All his tech reflects that 'command' structure and his choice. I choose life, which is a messier thing altogether.

Phew. What a relief. it is a revolutionary realization to neither want or need to be 'fixed'. To be unconditionally accepted as one is.
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

J and I toured the Rajneeshpurim in its final days. I wax excited to see a real cult. (you'll see the irony there, yes? Cuz we were in CofS then.)
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Scn ethics policy seems to have some inherent pitfalls even away from CofS. I mean, obviously, in CofS, it's a major clusterfuck. But outside of it, seems like it's still problematic even though I know I could take some of those ideas and use them. At best, it's mildly palliative in parts; at worst it's very bad.

I mainly don't see any problem with auditing or TRs- that sort of thing.

Some of the exes who help CofSers escape are Freezoners. The them and us attitude (that's not aimed at you, btw) I sometimes see is something I find distasteful.

Yes, I thought you were being literal about people being held. So was I.

I don't feel compelled to judge others if they choose to get "auditing" even though for me the conceptual frame work of such "auditing", its scaffolding, is flimsy. I feel that way. I choose to not use any "tech" and to realize it is not "tech."

That said, I am at peace being here and being ok with others who do what they need to do to cope with existence. Since that is what we humans do on this ball called earth. We cope. We wait. We have expectations. We seek joy. We try to surround ourselves with beauty.

I know that I speak strongly against all tech. I have tried in my blog posts to explain why I reject the tech and why I will never use it again. I won't do any sessions and I won't use their lingo when possible to avoid.

For me, the entire tech is a big fat ugly implant. A virus and lie. A bad program.

But I long ago realized that I can't convince others of what thoughts to think. That is why I am not a cult leader. So I am ok that others feel and believe differently.

The main reason I am here is to share war stories and do memory lane. I know that being a stubborn Cuban I can sometimes have strong opinions. But I don't view the arguments here, us and them, as an us and them. We are all exes and we do our best from wherever we are in relation to existence.

:heartflower:
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I don't feel compelled to judge others if they choose to get "auditing" even though for me the conceptual frame work of such "auditing", its scaffolding, is flimsy. I feel that way. I choose to not use any "tech" and to realize it is not "tech."

That said, I am at peace being here and being ok with others who do what they need to do to cope with existence. Since that is what we humans do on this ball called earth. We cope. We wait. We have expectations. We seek joy. We try to surround ourselves with beauty.

I know that I speak strongly against all tech. I have tried in my blog posts to explain why I reject the tech and why I will never use it again. I won't do any sessions and I won't use their lingo when possible to avoid.

For me, the entire tech is a big fat ugly implant. A virus and lie. A bad program.

But I long ago realized that I can't convince others of what thoughts to think. That is why I am not a cult leader. So I am ok that others feel and believe differently.

I get your drift on your above comment but don't fully agree that you can't convince others of what thoughts to think. You are not a cult leader but you are an opinion leader and in that capacity, it seems to be that you do have the ability to convince others what to think, at least figuratively if not literally . I, for one, have changed my position on tech quite a bit, since I have been reading your posts and judging from the posts of others, you have attracted a following of people who really want to hear what you have to say and want to get your take on various issues because they value greatly what you have to say..

The main reason I am here is to share war stories and do memory lane. I know that being a stubborn Cuban I can sometimes have strong opinions. But I don't view the arguments here, us and them, as an us and them. We are all exes and we do our best from wherever we are in relation to existence.

Others are stubborn as well, those of us who have disagreed with you on various points are like Timex watches, "We have taken a licking but we are still ticking". I just couldn't resist getting that cute line into this post.

:heartflower:

Hey, Maria, you have made your feelings about tech known and you have expressed yourself very eloquently so that everybody here can see where you stand on virtually all aspects of tech . I just thought of one practice which might be considered tech or it might be considered an absence of tech and to date, you have never mentioned your feelings about or your positions on this particular subject and that is the subject of meditation, The concept of sitting alone in your own space, quieting your mind and looking inward. Do you have a position on meditation? Can you take it or leave it or is it similar to tech in that you have a strong opinion about it?
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Hey, Maria, you have made your feelings about tech known and you have expressed yourself very eloquently so that everybody here can see where you stand on virtually all aspects of tech . I just thought of one practice which might be considered tech or it might be considered an absence of tech and to date, you have never mentioned your feelings about or your positions on this particular subject and that is the subject of meditation, The concept of sitting alone in your own space, quieting your mind and looking inward. Do you have a position on meditation? Can you take it or leave it or is it similar to tech in that you have a strong opinion about it?
My "position" on meditation is seated. Some prefer a basic yoga position. ( Fun difference : meditation & medication is ONE letter )

Might as well start with a true definition of meditation

What is meditation ? :

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"This article is about the induction of specific modes or states of consciousness. For other uses, see Meditation (disambiguation).


A statue of the Buddha meditating, Borim Temple, Korea
Meditation is a practice in which an individual trains the mind or induces a mode of consciousness, either to realize some benefit or for the mind to simply acknowledge its content without becoming identified with that content,[1] or as an end in itself.[2]

The term meditation refers to a broad variety of practices that includes techniques designed to promote relaxation, build internal energy or life force (qi, ki, prana, etc.) and develop compassion,[3] love, patience, generosity and forgiveness. A particularly ambitious form of meditation aims at effortlessly sustained single-pointed concentration[4] meant to enable its practitioner to enjoy an indestructible sense of well-being while engaging in any life activity.

The word meditation carries different meanings in different contexts. Meditation has been practiced since antiquity as a component of numerous religious traditions and beliefs.[5] Meditation often involves an internal effort to self-regulate the mind in some way. Meditation is often used to clear the mind and ease many health concerns, such as high blood pressure,[6] depression, and anxiety. It may be done sitting, or in an active way—for instance, Buddhist monks involve awareness in their day-to-day activities as a form of mind-training. Prayer beads or other ritual objects are commonly used during meditation in order to keep track of or remind the practitioner about some aspect of the training.

Meditation may involve generating an emotional state for the purpose of analyzing that state—such as anger, hatred, etc.—or cultivating a particular mental response to various phenomena, such as compassion.[citation needed] The term "meditation" can refer to the state itself, as well as to practices or techniques employed to cultivate the state.[7] Meditation may also involve repeating a mantra and closing the eyes.[8] The mantra is chosen based on its suitability to the individual meditator. Meditation has a calming effect and directs awareness inward until pure awareness is achieved, described as "being awake inside without being aware of anything except awareness itself."[9] In brief, there are dozens of specific styles of meditation practice, and many different types of activity commonly referred to as meditative practices.[10] "
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The book I'm currently reading (I Am That) also posits the idea that you don't need to do all this fixing...because you just realize you ARE. So one would go beyond the fixing.

The thought we need to be fixed is actually logical to a point. It pops up in accredited mental health sciences, New Age thought, traditional religions - all sorts of things. I get it and I don't mind this pov. But I think it's a long long road and one would get bogged down in minutiae.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The book I'm currently reading (I Am That) also posits the idea that you don't need to do all this fixing...because you just realize you ARE. So one would go beyond the fixing.

The thought we need to be fixed is actually logical to a point. It pops up in accredited mental health sciences, New Age thought, traditional religions - all sorts of things. I get it and I don't mind this pov. But I think it's a long long road and one would get bogged down in minutiae.

I just wrote a blog post today on the question of fixing. I agree that beings cannot be 'fixed'. Thank you for saying it, as repeated from that book even though you yourself may not agree. I find that anything New Age is a waste of my personal time but I also get that others like it and so I won't bash anyone for that. I agree with what you said, let's not get bogged in minutiae....Yay, we can have fun together and let some stuff sort of ride by....like the way houses pass while looking from a car window....whole philosophies and disagreements can just pass too.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Sure!

Book is actually Vedic but I get that the New Age movement appropriated and forwards a lot of that.

My guess is that one can fix some stuff and maybe should- like someone with a disorder or trauma. But for enlightenment- I'm thinking I want to go beyond it. (for some reason am thinking of tesseract analogy from "A Wrinkle in Time")...

So maybe it's fixing and enlightenment that don't play well together.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Hey, Maria, you have made your feelings about tech known and you have expressed yourself very eloquently so that everybody here can see where you stand on virtually all aspects of tech . I just thought of one practice which might be considered tech or it might be considered an absence of tech and to date, you have never mentioned your feelings about or your positions on this particular subject and that is the subject of meditation, The concept of sitting alone in your own space, quieting your mind and looking inward. Do you have a position on meditation? Can you take it or leave it or is it similar to tech in that you have a strong opinion about it?

I guess I am agnostic. I'm not going to meditate, reminds me too much of the shamanism thing. In what I was doing there, meditation was seen as not helpful. I could never really meditate. I have heard that people enjoy it and that it helps them. I don't have a strong opinion....I have tried it a long time ago. Meditation is the opposite of 'dreaming' in the special sense i use the word. In dreaming, one focuses on something. For example if I think of someone I have not seen in years and they suddenly call without my having told them I was thinking of them. I focused on them, then they came. That is more how dreaming works. But I am sure there are experts in meditation who could educate me!

:biggrin:
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

There are many awesome songs written in Spanish. One of my favorites is eres tu, not only because of the melodies and harmonies but also because the lyrics are very poetic.

Check it out!

Lakey

Like! :happydance: Here's one of my favourite Spanish songs - the emotion and melody just give me chills. I don't understand much of the lyrics, but the gist seems to be, hey, I've been in your shoes. I'm here for you. Come walk with me. You're not alone.

Maybe you or someone else can translate?

I just love Zucchero.

[video=youtube;S10wohhv_RQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S10wohhv_RQ[/video]
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I guess I am agnostic. I'm not going to meditate, reminds me too much of the shamanism thing. In what I was doing there, meditation was seen as not helpful. I could never really meditate. I have heard that people enjoy it and that it helps them. I don't have a strong opinion....I have tried it a long time ago. Meditation is the opposite of 'dreaming' in the special sense i use the word. In dreaming, one focuses on something. For example if I think of someone I have not seen in years and they suddenly call without my having told them I was thinking of them. I focused on them, then they came. That is more how dreaming works. But I am sure there are experts in meditation who could educate me!

:biggrin:

Do you follow any spiritual path currently?
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Maria, I don't see how your beliefs in any way fit with Christianity, yet on your blog you state you are a Christian. One can't be both an agnostic and a Christian, yet you claim to be both and state you arrived at this through shamanism. You've stated clearly and emphatically to me in so many words that you think Christian beliefs are bunk.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I don't understand that you've answered the question either here or on your blog, unless you really do not know what Christian beliefs are (which I highly doubt). What do you actually believe? Do you have a spiritual path?

Edit for clarification: Christians believe in a Trinity, in a Father Son and Holy Spirit. They believe Jesus is Saviour. Are you stating you believe these things or not?
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I guess I am agnostic.:biggrin:

From the blog you state to Lakey: "I am an existentialist" http://www.forum.exscn.net/entry.php?875-The-quot-Age-of-Answers-quot

In the same blog you state to Lakey: "I chose christianity, finally,"

Maria, I don't personally care what your beliefs are, but you frequently contradict yourself and often voice opinions that others' beliefs are wrong.

It's all good and fine to believe in love and God, and yes, those are some Christian, as well as Buddhist, Moslem, Hari Krishna, etc. basic beliefs, but the basic beliefs of Christianity are in God as expressed in the Trinity and Jesus as saviour and messiah. You do know this, right? But you're pretty clear that you do not believe these things and consider Christians do not understand God correctly.

So how are you a Christian? Or are you just trying to please everyone by saying you believe and don't believe things depending on who you speak with?
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Maria, I don't see how your beliefs in any way fit with Christianity, yet on your blog you state you are a Christian. One can't be both an agnostic and a Christian, yet you claim to be both and state you arrived at this through shamanism. You've stated clearly and emphatically to me in so many words that you think Christian beliefs are bunk.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I don't understand that you've answered the question either here or on your blog, unless you really do not know what Christian beliefs are (which I highly doubt). What do you actually believe? Do you have a spiritual path?

Edit for clarification: Christians believe in a Trinity, in a Father Son and Holy Spirit. They believe Jesus is Saviour. Are you stating you believe these things or not?


I dropped out of shamanism. That doesn't mean I stopped understanding it. Just like I still understand Scientology. And I don't believe in it. Existentialists can be Christians (Kierkegaard, Gabriel Marcel). I have been stating I dropped out of shamanism since the start. I never stated my beliefs other than to say I was Christian and existentialist. I don't see where I contradicted myself? Specifics? Where did I say that Christians did not understand God? I doubt I would ever ever say that. Yes, I believe those things. And? I just don't talk about my beliefs here. Here I talk mostly about being an ex-Scientologist.

Where was I contradicting myself???
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top