WHAT HAPPENED TO SCIENTOLOGY

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

The basics of scientology such as the 8 dynamics, the ARC triangle, the tone scale - what may I ask do you find fault with that.

Those aren't the basics of Scientology, rather they're the window dressing, the facade, the disguise, the wrapping (or part of the wrapping) around the actual Scientology package. http://exscn.net/content/view/178/105

The universe, the human mind, and the human nervous system disincline anyone from examining both the wrapping and the package. Those who see the disguise have trouble seeing what's behind the disguise; those who see what's behind the disguise have trouble seeing the disguise.

It helps to have two brains and three eyes, but, unfortunately, one needs to have two brains and three eyes to appreciate what that means.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
It astonishes me that anyone could cite the tone scale as a worthwhile core in Scientology. It looks like something out of a fifteen year old's home-brew RPG.

The eight 'dynamics' are a formula for justifying evil. 'Greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics' is a vote in a council of eight, and since only the first and second dynamics have unambiguous definitions, the CofS effectively control the other six votes, because they can interpret those dynamics however they like. So any amount of suffering by actual people and families can be declared ethical.

ARC seems to be less than a slogan; a logo. What is it actually worth?
 

Feral

Rogue male
The theoretical ideas proposed contain some truth and were interesting to explore.

But, alas, Ron the Explorer is the only being in the universe allowed to explore because he alone (I was informed in KSW) was granted the exclusive licensing deal for all intellectual properties explaining life.

While perhaps I could afford the "mest" royalty payments, I went bankrupt psychologically, spiritually and morally.

I prefer knowledge that is not sold by rabid cult members who stalk and punish anyone who doesn't apply it the way they demand.

I also don't buy cars from dealerships that require I obtain CSW approval each time I want to drive somewhere--in order to hammer out of existence incorrect destinations.

That's got to be the post of the week. Scientology in a pill.:thumbsup:
 

Veda

Sponsor
It astonishes me that anyone could cite the tone scale as a worthwhile core in Scientology. It looks like something out of a fifteen year old's home-brew RPG.

The eight 'dynamics' are a formula for justifying evil. 'Greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics' is a vote in a council of eight, and since only the first and second dynamics have unambiguous definitions, the CofS effectively control the other six votes, because they can interpret those dynamics however they like. So any amount of suffering by actual people and families can be declared ethical.

ARC seems to be less than a slogan; a logo. What is it actually worth?

The cult of Scientology doesn't much mind if people argue about the "tone scale" or the "dynamics" or "ARC." The cult places these on display, primarily seeking agreement, then cooperation, but if others want to argue about them, while mildly annoying, it's tolerable, since it distracts from the rest of Scientology.

Most things in Scientology's outer visible shell have a upside and a downside.

All the better to keep the arguments going, with one camp seeing only the upside of the outer shell, and the other camp seeing only the downside of the outer shell.

Meanwhile, the Scientology cult continues to do what it does in the shadows.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
I think you have handled the matter well.

To be fair, if I was claiming 'experience' in the Cult, it might be a something I should reveal and I should blush when I'm exposed as never having been in.

As far as I know, I've never claimed any such thing and most people who have been around me for longer than 3 minutes know that. I've also never been in the Sea Org. That should be obvious if I wasn't in the 'Cult', but, maybe I should specify.

Iv'e explained my own involvement many times here on ESMB and even more times on ARS before here. I admit, I don't constantly repeat it. I should probably put up a webpage with my 'statement'. It's not hard to find things out about me though and I've *never* claimed to having been a member or even a Sea Orger.

When I did get involved in Scientology criticism there were very *few* exes. Most of the people I knew were 'never beens'. It wasn't an issue. Thankfully, times have changed and, thanks to the efforts of those exes who took the risk and the never-beens who were willing to offer themselves up as targets to the still unmitigated 'power' of the fucking bug-shit-crazy UFO Cult, it's become easier for exes to 'come out'.

I'm glad about that. Anonymous would not exist except for 50 years of prior art. The current situation would not exist except for hundreds of people willing to risk their lives in lonely opposition to a moloch that outgunned them, outflanked them, owned the stage and the media and the powers that be, but, did it anyway.

When I became a Scientology Critic around 1995 I had some knowledge of Scientology, but more knowledge of cults in general and I was a newbie who didn't know shit really and I was flabbergasted at the courage of the people who were already there. The Exes were there. Some few, and, they were *essential* because, nobody would have had any information without them. And, the never-beens were there too. For no good reason beyond their unwillingness to put up with the kind of school-yard bullying tactics that Scientology specializes in.

Neither could have functioned without the other.

Zinj


Zinj, until yesterday, I did not know that you have never been in the "Church". I think you have handled that fact just fine. Only if someone were concealing that fact would it then become an issue. I don't think it is necessary to put it in your byline either. You could if you wanted but it should in no way be mandatory.

Both those who have been in and those who have not, can bring good commentary about C of S to the table. Those who have been in have access to more actual incidents and anecdotes by far than those who were never in. However, once those "never beens" read and assimilate their articles and posts, then they are then qualified to give their opinions on the topic. If a "never been in" has done enough research and read enough articles then it would seem to me that they are on equal footing with "been ins" when giving opinions.

There are a couple of differences. Those who have never been in and never sipped the "Kool Aid" may be able to comment more objectively without dragging in their own personal emotions while those who have received services and have given services to others may have more reality on what type of gains, if any, are available through the practice of Scientology.
Lakey
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Zinj, until yesterday, I did not know that you have never been in the "Church". I think you have handled that fact just fine. Only if someone were concealing that fact would it then become an issue. I don't think it is necessary to put it in your byline either. You could if you wanted but it should in no way be mandatory.

Both those who have been in and those who have not, can bring good commentary about C of S to the table. Those who have been in have access to more actual incidents and anecdotes by far than those who were never in. However, once those "never beens" read and assimilate their articles and posts, then they are then qualified to give their opinions on the topic. If a "never been in" has done enough research and read enough articles then it would seem to me that they are on equal footing with "been ins" when giving opinions.

There are a couple of differences. Those who have never been in and never sipped the "Kool Aid" may be able to comment more objectively without dragging in their own personal emotions while those who have received services and have given services to others may have more reality on what type of gains, if any, are available through the practice of Scientology.
Lakey
I agree, and Zinj knows what he's talking about. As regards the 'gains', I think that they are nothing compared to what is promised and paid for, transitory and often fuelled by group approval like a slimming club.
 

apple

Patron Meritorious
I later heard that this overboard nonsense started when LRH said “he should be thrown overboard” not intending it literally but the recipient of that message took it literally and from there on it happened every morning until it was later stopped.


If Hubbard did not intend people to be thrown overboard then why did he did not stop this practice when it first happened? Instead he stood by and watched it, as I read from other reports.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
I later heard that this overboard nonsense started when LRH said “he should be thrown overboard” not intending it literally but the recipient of that message took it literally and from there on it happened every morning until it was later stopped.


If Hubbard did not intend people to be thrown overboard then why did he did not stop this practice when it first happened? Instead he stood by and watched it, as I read from other reports.
According to people there at the time, he greatly enjoyed it and liked to film it.
 
It astonishes me that anyone could cite the tone scale as a worthwhile core in Scientology. It looks like something out of a fifteen year old's home-brew RPG.

It's actually an apt "rule of thumb" about observable patterns of behavior with regard to pc's changing behaviors in an active auditing session. I would concur it is not an "exact science", nor is it as widely applicable outside of an auditing session as Hubbard tried to promote. Still, it can be an unusually useful tool in learning to "read" others.


The eight 'dynamics' are a formula for justifying evil. 'Greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics' is a vote in a council of eight, and since only the first and second dynamics have unambiguous definitions, the CofS effectively control the other six votes, because they can interpret those dynamics however they like. So any amount of suffering by actual people and families can be declared ethical.


Whether it is used destructively depends on the manner in which the concept is applied. In this it is much like the oft stated principle of "the need to advance science". That is a precept that has often used to justify grossly unethical conduct & activities with disastrous consequences. :)

I have known it to be routinely used by ethically inclined individuals to promote the general well-being of all. As one example: it has often served as a key concept behind an individual's decision to leave the Co$. :)



ARC seems to be less than a slogan; a logo. What is it actually worth?

Take a comm course & find out. :p



Mark A. Baker
 
If a "never been in" has done enough research and read enough articles then it would seem to me that they are on equal footing with "been ins" when giving opinions.

Except as they lack experience with any actual spiritual tech. The value of auditing lies in experiencing it, not what you've read about it.

With regard Z, he is very well informed on the history of the church, LRH, and the critics movement. In these matters he routinely contributes much of value with his customary style & panache. His comments specifically dealing with matters of the tech are not as soundly based, although they are also delivered with his customary style. :)


Mark A. Baker
 
Yowie Zowie!

Hubbard also observed that no-one except him discovered Scientology. He also observed that homosexuals should be cordoned off and eliminated. he also observed that clears have perfect recall.

He apparently observed a whole bunch of total rubbish and wrote most if down.

Glad you are still convinced. Report in from the mothership as soon as you spot an OT!


Well Bird, first things first. Stop the machine. Stop the crime. Stop the 'Church'.

There will be plenty of time to play with the pretty shards and shambles once the raw-meat-grinder is smashed into impotence.

Zinj

Mike. Right on. I've read all that and much much more. And there are some very credible first person stories which make my blood boil. I worked on staff until I got SCREWED. And as noted elsewhere, Greg Wilhere, my erstwhile brother-in-law blocked my path to my son when he had leukemia. I do not drink the koolaid and Ididn't drink the koolaid when I was in.

But.

I'm still an auditor.

I did and do produce some phantasmagoric results.

Wow!

You are so ticked if I say "apple" you probably hear "ashes" but I love ya bro' and I read your posts.

And Zinj.

CoS has a legal right to be there and they have $. They ain't goin' nowhere. Come to the Memorial Day foofaraw in Boston. We'll rap about it.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
You clipped off the last paragraph of my post.......

Except as they lack experience with any actual spiritual tech. The value of auditing lies in experiencing it, not what you've read about it.

With regard Z, he is very well informed on the history of the church, LRH, and the critics movement. In these matters he routinely contributes much of value with his customary style & panache. His comments specifically dealing with matters of the tech are not as soundly based, although they are also delivered with his customary style. :)


Mark A. Baker

You clipped off the last paragraph of my post which makes the point you are making in your post. I said the same thing, basically but maybe toned it down just a wee bit.
Lakey
 

Eelo Ars

Patron
I already praised Lexmark a few posts back in case you missed it. Is "the universal random number generator" the equivalent for God for Aetheists? If so, it is a very well chosen term.
Lakey

Thanks. I did not miss it.

Nevertheless, there is a lot of BPC on these subjects, and anyone who has anything to say that disagrees with that BPC is liable to get dump truck load "you are an idiot!" shoved in his face.

But that is understandable in the light of what so many have been through. Keep in mind that those who have managed to find their way out of that enslavement, were trained in the most masterful art of invalidation, enslavement, debasement, intimidation, denial of self and corruption of life vectors by the best of the best.

It is not surprising that they so artfully pounce on the fresh meat like famished predators.

What is surprising is the way they have acted out that abuse on others.

You can take those who have been abused out of the church, but it appears much more difficult to that the church out of the abused.

Yes, and yes to the latter statement.

I got heads, heads, tails, and heads. What you got?
 

bts2free

Patron with Honors
I later heard that this overboard nonsense started when LRH said “he should be thrown overboard” not intending it literally but the recipient of that message took it literally and from there on it happened every morning until it was later stopped.


If Hubbard did not intend people to be thrown overboard then why did he did not stop this practice when it first happened? Instead he stood by and watched it, as I read from other reports.

This is complete bullshit.

Did LRH not write and give I/A to Flag Order OVERBOARD, which I had to *rate and probably M9 and Clay-freakin'-Demo on my Gold MAA Full Hat pack?

When I was pushing people into the lake at Gold (sometimes ENTIRE divisions), with Ken Hoden acting as Chaplain, was this not per an LRH order, or did I just make this shit up and pull it out of my ass? Nope, it wasn't a DM order either, it was an LRH Flag order still being applied all the way up until I left in 2000.

Sorry, but LRH was the sick bastard that came up with this shit.
 

Div6

Crusader
Here is an account from someone who was there:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=65452

The Overboard Ceremony

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose there has already been somer stuff written about this, but I thought I would fill in some of the early details.

We were in Corfu, autumn of 1968.

Sitting in Diana's office with Hana, Hubbard came by. He was quite chatty and looking forward to the forthcoming Class 8 course. During the conversation he said " Well, whenever they flunk a session, we will throw them overboard". We all laughed, but Hubbard never laughed with his eyes. It leftm us with a question mark over the statement. Was he kidding? Or was he serious?.

Funnily enough, in the same conversation, I remarked about some members of the public simply joining staff to get free processing and training and then leaving. I caller them Freeloaders. Hubbard said that was a good way of describing them and he would use it.

Sorry, folks!

Anyway, the Class 8 course had 3 MAA's, Craig DeFan, Ollie Budlong and Rod Taunton. They were photographed and features in an Auditor edition at that time.

The students, having been summoned to the ship were in a range of emotion from indifference to outright terror. They were made to wear bright green overalls, brown open toed sandals and had to wear a running noose around their neck.

As an indication of how cowed down they were, an old friend from St Hill, Fred Fairchild - he had come from Dertoit Org, had a beard. I happened to remark that I thought he looked much better without the beard. The next morning he came down clean shaven. I asked what had happened to the beard. He thought that my friendly and innocent enquiry was an instruction, so he had shaved it off.

The MAA's went right into the Nazi identity. The next morning all the students were mustered on the aft well deck. A name was called and the person stepped forward and told he/or she had flunked a session. They were bodily picked up and thrown over the side. It was about 30ft drop into the harbour.

A mantra was shouted " We commit your errors to the deep and trust you will arise a better person."

Whilst the overboard ceremony was going on, Hubbard was two decks up redording the incident on his cine camera.

The same ceremony was applied to the staff as well, usually for some (henious) transgression soch as ordering some equipment without FP approval.

Along the side of the ship was a rubbing strake. The person had to be thrown out sufficiently far as to avoid it, or it could easily result in death.

There was a rule, If the overboardee touched the side of the ship on the way down, the Officer in charge of the ceremony immediately got thrown overboard too. Therefore you tried to hit out with your hand or foot so you could get that bastard thrown over as well.

There were degrees of overboard. Firstly there was simple overboard. Then we had overboard blindfolded, there was overboard with either feet or hands tied. The most extreme was being tied and blindfolded going overboard.

It didn't matter if you could swim or not. You were screamed at to "make things go right". You made your way along the side of the ship and clambered in through the cattle door at the side.

I have seen people in absolute terror, panicking in the water. On a couple of occasions we defied the MAA's and dived in to rescue the person. The punishment was a double overboard, one after the other.

The most disorienting one I had was being thrown over blindfolded. You could not accurately anticipate the moment of impact.

And of course, Hubbard was up there, every morning watching and more often than not cine recording it.

When the class 8 course finished, the students returned to their various orgs. They adapted the overboard ceremony according to local conditions. This could be immersing them in a cold bath to putting their head down the toilet and flushing it. Students had to wear green vests and a rope noose.

Once the students had departed, Hubbard got really vicious with the overboards. John MacMaster, the first clear and a real international celebrity was on the ship. Hubbard clearly saw him as a threat to his own self-importance. John was a charasmatic speaker. He could talk about affinity to a whole theatre of people and there would not be a dry eye in the house. John was a superb auditor and was responsible for the development of Power Processing.

The problem was that John was gay. Hubbard had an absolute loathing for any homosexual man or woman (or coloured person in fact) and set out to destroy John.He assigned John as a galley hand, clearing up the aftermess etc. He has John thrown overboard blindfolded and his feet tied together, on more than one occasion.

More than one of us have heard Hubbard say" I hope the damn faggot drowns"
as John went over the side. I spoke with John years later, before he passed away. He bore Hubbard no grudge for the inhumane way he was treated.

I trust that this fills in some gaps for you on what you might have heard about these events.
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Travers,
Here is some info which should open your eyes to what Hubbard allowed and or condoned:

Scientology insider's nightmare childhood
By Sarah Collerton - exclusive

Updated Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:10pm AEDT

A former Scientologist who says she was a "child slave" and alleges she saw a six-year-old boy chained up in a ship's hold is disappointed the Senate has blocked a full inquiry into the religious organisation.
r529668_3001847.jpg

Keryn (left) and an unindentified shipmate on board the Scientology ship The Athena off Scandinavia in 1971 (Supplied)

[..] Keryn, 54, grew up in the church and has asked the ABC to identify her only by her first name.

--------------------------
If you look at the following Four Corners | Life after Scientology | ABC1 TV show Ex-Files video, starting at about 3:00 onward, you will see Hanna Eltringham Whitman talk about her SO experiences and observations of overboarding of SO members and locking up of children in the bilge of the ship.
She also talks about Hubbard's RPF on the ship and answers in response to the church denials.:

" A senior member of the church explains that such camps are important opportunities for reflection, rehabilitation and redemption. Yet ex-members say that not only is the workload poorly compensated, but the system of punishment is ridiculous and extreme. Speaking exclusively, one early member explains how members were treated abominably by the now deceased founder of the Church: L.Ron Hubbard. She claims that during Hubbards self-imposed exile on the high seas, people were thrown overboard, hands bound and feet bound and blindfolded, when they broke the rules. All eventually recovered, yet its the increasing frequency of shocking allegations like this, which is bringing increasing pressure on the US and Australian authorities to question Scientologys legal status."

Hope this helps

Mary McConnell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NS5unTRJDg
 
Top