Why do YOU cling to the "Tech?"

Gadfly

Crusader
Yes, LRH took almost everything from somewhere else. Yes, he came up with a few things of his own. But, for the most part, he reworded ideas that had been around for a very long time. As I am very familiar with some of the these ideas in their original form, it is clear to me that Hubbard's main "skill" was in "organizing". But, also, he did alter some of what he stole or borrowed from others. Generally, what I have come to realize is that what I liked about the subject of Scientology, is largely what I like/liked about data from Buddhism and Hinduism.

Hubbard went entirely off the rails with his ethics/justice tech, and especially "management" views. The insane degree of "WE ARE THE ONLY WAY, FOLLOW US OR ELSE", as expressed in the "Keeping Scientology Working" HCOPL, is ratcheted up in the official Church, more so than in any other similar practice. This aspect of "we must save the universe now", RUSH RUSH RUSH, "an emergency every moment of everyday", "we have limited time and resources with so many enemies against us", and on and on, creates such an amazingly SEVERE attitude within the official Church. This aspect is unique and major in Scientology.

I will always have an affinity for eastern ideas as expressed in Hindu and Buddhist thought. I like some of how LRH expressed those things. Though, for me now at this stage in my life, I have found meditation and visualization techniques, and even some aspects of Magick, FAR MORE useful than Hubbard's auditing techniques. Yes, auditing helped me when I had lots of problems and was a young inexperienced insecure "idealistic" dweeb, BUT as a grown-up with mature aims, the subject and methods of Scn are almost entirely of no value to me anymore.

Really, it is simply the underlying attitude of Scientology that got me re-evaluating the entire subject. Hubbard's elitism, his overblown sense of value for himself and the subject he "created", and the fanatical "lofty purpose to Clear the Planet", underlie and live through everything about Scientology. And, to me and for me, that results in a major conflict, where most members cannot learn and display some of the most powerful aspects of any VALID spiritual path: love, compassion, forgiveness, and non-judgment. Over 20 years in close involvement with the group and people who had studied and applied "LRH data", I saw very FEW with any understanding of these terms, and even fewer actually practice these ideas in their lives. I reiterate that Scientology largely creates self-absorbed ego-maniacs, with grossly inflated senses of their own goals and purposes, and with REDUCED affinity for their fellow man due to the inherent elitist view (we are the best, we are doing it, we are saving all Man, wogs are inferior, SPs suck, evil beings are everywhere and out to get us, the media sucks, the middle class sucks, in fact EVERYTHING sucks in Hubbard's view except the Church and Church supporters). Oh they will "care", but mostly only if you are "one of the team". Too often the "affinity" towards others is very much qualified and conditional. Leave the team, and watch what happens. Almost always.

And the organization, and how it is run? THAT aspect is entirely NUTS. When any person honestly looks at how the LRH policies were written and are applied to "handle, address, attack and overwhelm enemies", how can any person not see through the lies and deception and see them for what they are. These people are disingenuous, deceitful, manipulating NASTY people. I know I am talking about RTC, OSA and top management in that regard, since most staff and public are unaware of the very horrible actions their Church takes in "handling critics and dissent". But the "top" sets the tone for the whole operation. It always has and it always will. Hubbard began that and it continues with Miscavige.

Loud, forceful, arrogant, demanding, nasty, "the end justifies the means", "do anything, even harm and lie to and about others, to reach our glorious goals", and never be "reasonable".

THAT is the legacy of Hubbard's running things. It is extreme. That tradition continues.

I also think that Hubbard's ideas on management can in some ways be applied and useful to "normal people". But, the way these are used within the Church, along with KSW and the absolutist attitude of "we are the only savior in the entire universe", well the result is total lunacy.
 
Last edited:

Imnotsupposetobehere

Patron with Honors
I think its about understanding that the tech did not originate from LRH to begin with. LRH squirrelled on the group he belonged to. Thelema means intention. All this stuff already existed and people belong to Thelema Kaballah groups and practice everyday.
I should be a matter of choice. Do you personally want to practice or not?
If not move on. Obsessing over those that do, is that healthy? For those who choose to continue to practice they have an ethical responsibility to disclose they are administering the dark arts and disclose the risks.
Jen


"Dark arts" what are we in some Harry Potter novel? :unsure:
And as for ethics, that depends on what you consider ethical to be.
But I do believe it should be a matter of choice, and those like myself who choose to still study Scientology shouldn't be condemned for doing so.:yes:
 

DCAnon

Silver Meritorious Patron
I belive that the tech was altered by the current Church, I don't think anything should be changed in Scientology just the current church's application of it and their inability to not handle squirrels.

You're right. LRH's Fair Game policy, Operation Freakout, and calling for harassment, intimidation, and utter destruction of critics, exes, and anyone who was <2.0 and couldn't be "saved" by Scientology was much more humane and ethical.

The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. - LRH, Science of Survival

…any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind.

-L. Ron Hubbard, Science of Survival, part I, page 131

Somebody some day will say "this is illegal". By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not.

-L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966

"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."

- L. Ron Hubbard, A MANUAL ON THE DISSEMINATION OF MATERIAL, 1955

"ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 18 October 1967

"A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable."

- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 1 March 1965, HCO (Division 1) "Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists"

"When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on the nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with your pockets full of artillery, potential blackmail on every erstwhile rival, unlimited funds in your private account and the addresses of experienced assassins and go live in Bulgravia [sic] and bribe the police."

- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 12 February 1967, "The Responsibilities of Leaders"

"There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the Tone Scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow."

- L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 170


"Quietly and without sorrow" hm? You're right. Absolutely nothing in Scientology is wrong except for the current management and nothing should be changed. The world would be a much better place if we all followed every word of Hubbard to the letter, don't you think?
 

Gadfly

Crusader
"Dark arts" what are we in some Harry Potter novel? :unsure:

Actually, there is a verifiable direct evolution from the Occult revival in Europe in the mide-late 1800's, through Masonry, Rosicrucianism, the Golden Dawn, various occult (secret) societies and onto Aleister Crowley, AND then onto Scientology. It is verifiable for anyone who wants to take the time, do the research and look. Scientology was a natural outgrowth of an already existing pattern in thought spreading out through the world. The popularity of all things "New Age" is another indicator of that. Who or what is "behind" this is something else entirely. I imply no judgment on this either way. That is up to the reader, to decide how the fact of Scientology's true heritage matters to you. For me, it doesn't matter. It is just the way it is.

Didn't one of Hubbard's kids testify under oath about how Hubbard read Crowley daily before giving the PDC lectures? Hubbard himself called Crowly a "dear friend" (or something like that) in some lecture.

I have read about the Kaballah in books by Dion Fortune and Israel Regardie (contemporaries and associates of Crowley). While it is interesting, and I get a great deal out it, there is not much common in its ideas and those of Scientology on any detailed and practical level.

Yes, it does sound like a Harry Potter book, in some regards. But, that is because, whether you know it or not, Scientology is very much deeply rooted in the tradition of the Occult and Magick. Cripes, that is obvious to anyone slightly familair with these "other subjects". The problem is that most people have absolutely NO contact or familarity with these other subjects. The innocent and naive Scientologist simply is unable to see the DIRECT connections to these other subjects, because most have NO CLUE at all about these other subjects. Ignorance is bliss.

I have no problem with the true ancestory of Scientology data. I have studied much in all the above mentioned subjects, and I enjoy most of the information, including what Crowley had to say.

The goal of all magick has always been to subdue the material universe and forces to ones will. To enable one to have "control" over matter, energy, space and time.

The goal of mystics and less egotistical paths has been to "learn the truth" and "become free".

Scientology falls much more along the magickal path (that's fine with me, I like the subject of magick). Just look at the definitions of "OT". "Full cause over matter, energy, space, and time, both objective and subjective". That definition existed in the late 1970's, and of course, like everything in the official Church, it has been altered over and over again. But, the idea of "control over matter, energy, space and time" is still very much inherent in the ideas of an "operating thetan".

But, to make it clear, Scientology's soul has MUCH more to do with the tradition and goals of "magick" than with the tradition and goals of Buddhism. It is all about giving you, the practitioner, added powers and abilities and CONTROL over MEST. Of course, it has largely failed in that regard. I think Hubbard had a really major problem confusing his "theories, fantasies and ideals" with possible realities.

Also, just as a note here. Hubbard was very similar to Crowley in a few ways. Both were fascinated with themselves. Each loved to hear himself talk. Each had grossly exagerrated ideas about his own value, worth and meaning to the rest of the world (Hubbard even more than Crowley). Each seemed to develop a system that may have very well originated through the examination of their own MINDS, and then each assumed that this could and should be applied to all others, by extrapolating the views out onto everybody else. In fact, Crowley's "system" is very complicated, and in many ways the symbols and associations (magical correspondences) he used primarily were useful to HIM. Genuine practitioners of magick do stress the need for one to MAKE UP their own symbolic universe, since meaning and value differ from person to person. But then, most people are just not too bright, and they try to take some other magician's "system" and directly apply it to themselves.

In a way Hubbard may have done the same thing. All of his "tech" made sense to him, as it was HIS system. But then, he went and tried to get everybody else to assume that "his sytem" could willy-nilly be transferred to everyone else. Not so. And, in the end it didn't even "work" for him!

Hubbard was VERY familiar with the information and practices of magic, and also eastern philosophies. As any good creative thief, he learned well how to "conceal his sources". But, one must remain with head firmly embedded in the sand NOT to become aware of Scientology's direct relationship to the tradition of magic (thus my Avatar - the Ostrich).

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." - Crowley

There is no doubt that Hubbard had a VERY strong urge and pattern of behavior to do whatever the heck he wanted to do. He recognized no authorities above himself (that can be a good and/or bad thing). Hubbard WAS "the law" in his mind. OSA and RTC follow directly on THAT path in their attacking and handling any and all dissent, and with their endless PR pattern of lying to the masses. OSA will break any rule of conduct and behavior if it thinks it can get away with it realizing "what it wilt" (its goals). Sorry, but there ARE more similarities than differences. It IS like a Harry Potter book!
 
Last edited:

Imnotsupposetobehere

Patron with Honors
You're right. LRH's Fair Game policy, Operation Freakout, and calling for harassment, intimidation, and utter destruction of critics, exes, and anyone who was <2.0 and couldn't be "saved" by Scientology was much more humane and ethical.


















"Quietly and without sorrow" hm? You're right. Absolutely nothing in Scientology is wrong except for the current management and nothing should be changed. The world would be a much better place if we all followed every word of Hubbard to the letter, don't you think?

DCA go back and actually READ the books, don't just grab some quote when you don't understand the entire picture.
Thanks
:yes:
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Thanks Kha Khan for this topic - I've been meaning to ask the same thing. The CoS is a brainwashing cult and LRH was a nutcase. That should be quite obvious to people who manage to get out of the CoS' control and do a few searches on the internet for example. The amazing thing is that Freezoners (etc.) may think that the CoS is a brainwashing cult, but they still think that LRH was some sort of philantropical genious, or what? And the claims of the Tech are hardly humble, it's not "use this Tech and you'll feel a little better"... It's OT and cause over MEST and the whole track etc etc.

"Scientology represents not only the triumph of the placebo effect, but addiction to the placebo effect." - exactly! I couldn't have said it better myself!

It seems to upset some critics that they cannot negate the experiences of those who've derived some benefit from Scn or Dn. They can't erase the experiences, they can't negate them, they can't say they didn't happen as they are not those other people. So sour grapes inevitably ensues.

I have always defended critics and criticism to churchies sent to handle me or who decided on their own to do so. I know many other non CofS Scientologists who also have done so. I'm willing to let people have their own perspectives and draw their own conclusions. I find it rather sad that not everyone reciprocates in that.
 

Imnotsupposetobehere

Patron with Honors
Actually, there is a verifiable direct evolution from the Occult revival in Europe in the mide-late 1800's, through Masonry, Rosicrucianism, the Golden Dawn, various occult (secret) societies and onto Aleister Crowley, AND then onto Scientology. It is verifiable for anyone who wants to take the time, do the research and look. Scientology was a natural outgrowth of an already existing pattern in thought spreading out through the world. The popularity of all things "New Age" is another indicator of that. Who or what is "behind" this is something else entirely. I imply no judgment on this either way. That is up to the reader, to decide how the fact of Scientology's true heritage matters to you. For me, it doesn't matter. It is just the way it is.

Didn't one of Hubbard's kids testify under oath about how Hubbard read Crowley daily before giving the PDC lectures? Hubbard himself called Crowly a "dear friend" (or something like that) in some lecture.

I have read about the Kaballah in books by Dion Fortune and Israel Regardie (contemporaries and associates of Crowley). While it is interesting, and I get a great deal out it, there is not much common in its ideas and those of Scientology on any detailed and practical level.

Yes, it does sound like a Harry Potter book, in some regards. But, that is because, whether you know it or not, Scientology is very much deeply rooted in the tradition of the Occult and Magick. Cripes, that is obvious to anyone slightly familair with these "other subjects". The problem is that most people have absolutely NO contact or familarity with these other subjects. The innocent and naive Scientologist simply is unable to see the DIRECT connections to these other subjects, because most have NO CLUE at all about these other subjects. Ignorance is bliss.

I have no problem with the true ancestory of Scientology data. I have studied much in all the above mentioned subjects, and I enjoy most of the information, including what Crowley had to say.

The goal of all magick has always been to subdue the material universe and forces to ones will. To enable one to have "control" over matter, energy, space and time.

The goal of mystics and less egotistical paths has been to "learn the truth" and "become free".

Scientology falls much more along the magickal path (that's fine with me, I like the subject of magick). Just look at the definitions of "OT". "Full cause over matter, energy, space, and time, both objective and subjective". That definition existed in the late 1970's, and of course, like everything in the official Church, it has been altered over and over again. But, the idea of "control over matter, energy, space and time" is still very much inherent in the ideas of an "operating thetan".

But, to make it clear, Scientology's soul has MUCH more to do with the tradition and goals of "magick" than with the tradition and goals of Buddhism. It is all about giving you, the practitioner, added powers and abilities and CONTROL over MEST. Of course, it has largely failed in that regard. I think Hubbard had a really major problem confusing his "theories, fantasies and ideals" with possible realities.

Also, just as a note here. Hubbard was very similar to Crowley in a few ways. Both were fascinated with themselves. Each loved to hear himself talk. Each had grossly exagerrated ideas about his own value, worth and meaning to the rest of the world (Hubbard even more than Crowley). Each seemed to develop a system that may have very well originated through the examination of their own MINDS, and then each assumed that this could and should be applied to all others, by extrapolating the views out onto everybody else. In fact, Crowley's "system" is very comlicated, and in many ways the symbols and associations (magical correspondences) he used primarily were useful to HIM. Genuine practitioners of magick do stress the need for one to MAKE UP their own symbolic universe, since meaning and value differ from person to person. But then, most people are just not too bright, and they try to take some other magician's "system" and directly apply it to themselves.

In a way Hubbard may have done the same thing. All of his "tech" made sense to him, as it was HIS system. But then, he went and tried to get everybody else to assume that "his sytem" could willy-nilly be transferred to everyone else. Not so. And, in the end it didn't even "work" for him!

Hubbard was VERY familiar with the information and practices of magic, and also eastern philosophies. As any good creative thief, he learned well how to "conceal his sources". But, one must remain with head firmly embedded in the sand NOT to become aware of Scientology's direct relationship to the tradition of magic (thus my Avatar - the Ostrich).

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." - Crowley

There is no doubt that Hubbard had a VERY strong urge and pattern of behavior to do whatever the heck he wanted to do. He recognized no authorities above himself (that can be a good and/or bad thing). Hubbard WAS "the law" in his mind. OSA and RTC follow directly on THAT path in their attacking and handling any and all dissent, and with their endless PR pattern of lying to the masses. OSA will break any rule of conduct and behavior if it thinks it can get away with it realizing "what it wilt" (its goals). Sorry, but there ARE more similarities than differences. It IS like a Harry Potter book!

Thank you as I am sure that took you quite awhile to type out:yes:
So thank you for sharing your reality with me.
As for Ron not giving sources, I know for a fact that this is entirely false because I remeber several lectures and books where Ron specifically tells you where he got the information.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
DCA go back and actually READ the books, don't just grab some quote when you don't understand the entire picture.
Thanks
:yes:

Sorry, but the "whole picture" creates and allows the justifications for the things DCA quotes.

OSA can lie about people, setup phony crimes that never really happened, conduct obnoxious noisy investigations, and HURT REAL PEOPLE whose only "crime" was that he or she chose to speak their mind about the Church.

The "whole picture" justifies and excuses what I just described. I have spoken to MANY active Scientologists who admit some of the things I describe about OSA, and in EVERY case, they justify it through some concatenation of Scientology "logic". Usually, "well, they are SPs". THAT tends to be the usually justification to commit horrible acts against others. Hubbard wrote all of those policies defining and describing how TO HURT OTHER PEOPLE. He did THAT!

And remember folks, I am the guy who went exterior with full perception, and to this day consider it to be the "coolest" experience I ever had!

There is some good in Scientology data. But, most of it was stolen from somewhere else, whether you want to see that or not. And, there is MUCH bad in how Hubbard slants things, misrepresents things, and enables adherents to JUSTIFY harm against ones fellow man. Hubbard and his subject are incredible contradictions.

Hubbard did say those things DCA quoted. Hubbard MEANT them.
 

DCAnon

Silver Meritorious Patron
DCA go back and actually READ the books, don't just grab some quote when you don't understand the entire picture.
Thanks
:yes:

Now this is typical ad homynym stuff worthy of Sci schills online, kidlet. I disagree with you and pull up relevant quotes and you immediatly try to invalidate my evidence by claiming I'm not a Scientologist, I couldn't possibly know instead of confront the evidence and talking about what I posted. I HAVE actually read the books and I completely understand the context. LRH was a paranoid, hateful person who instituted policies to control people, limit their contact with the outside world, and punish those who disagreed with him by violence or destroying their lives in whatever way he could. If you disagreed with him, you did not deserve human rights and you are to be removed from society by any means necessary. If you disagree with any of his policies, including the ones where he's calling for the utter destruction of people and stripping them of their basic human rights, then you're squirreling the tech.

Prove me wrong.

Suppressive acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist. As persons or groups that would do such a thing act out of self-interest only to the detriment of all others, they cannot be granted the rights ordinarily accorded rational beings.
— L. Ron Hubbard
 

Imnotsupposetobehere

Patron with Honors
Sorry, but the "whole picture" creates and allows the justifications for the things DCA quotes.

OSA can lie about people, setup phony crimes that never really happened, conduct obnoxious noisy investigations, and HURT REAL PEOPLE whose only "crime" was that he or she chose to speak their mind about the Church.

The "whole picture" justifies and excuses what I just described. I have spoken to MANY active Scientologists who admit some of the things I describe about OSA, and in EVERY case, they justify it through some concatenation of Scientology "logic". Usually, "well, they are SPs". THAT tends to be the usually justification to commit horrible acts against others. Hubbard wrote all of those policies defining and describing how TO HURT OTHER PEOPLE. He did THAT!

And remember folks, I am the guy who went exterior with full perception, and to this day consider it to be the "coolest" experience I ever had!

There is some good in Scientology data. But, most of it was stolen from somewhere else, whether you want to see that or not. And, there is MUCH bad in how Hubbard slants things, misrepresents things, and enables adherents to JUSTIFY harm against ones fellow man. Hubbard and his subject are incredible contradictions.

Hubbard did say those things DCA quoted. Hubbard MEANT them.


Okay yes, I am aware of the policy's on how to handle Sp's (actually have them here in my apartment) however Ron actually went back and said not to use them.
 

DCAnon

Silver Meritorious Patron
Okay yes, I am aware of the policy's on how to handle Sp's (actually have them here in my apartment) however Ron actually went back and said not to use them.

The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.

FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.

This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.
- LRH

:eyeroll:
 

Imnotsupposetobehere

Patron with Honors
Now this is typical ad homynym stuff worthy of Sci schills online, kidlet. I disagree with you and pull up relevant quotes and you immediatly try to invalidate my evidence by claiming I'm not a Scientologist, I couldn't possibly know instead of confront the evidence and talking about what I posted. I HAVE actually read the books and I completely understand the context. LRH was a paranoid, hateful person who instituted policies to control people, limit their contact with the outside world, and punish those who disagreed with him by violence or destroying their lives in whatever way he could. If you disagreed with him, you did not deserve human rights and you are to be removed from society by any means necessary. If you disagree with any of his policies, including the ones where he's calling for the utter destruction of people and stripping them of their basic human rights, then you're squirreling the tech.

Prove me wrong.

DCA I am not interested in playing the game of fighting with you, it serves no purpose.
Go back and read.
:yes:
 

FinallyFree

Gold Meritorious Patron
I clung onto the tech because when that rug was pulled out from under me I felt so completely lost. I had nothing else to hang on to. I had devoted so much of my LIFE to scientology. HOW could it BE that it was all for not? How could I have been SO BLINDED. I had a hard time letting it go because of that. You think (for me, in the beginning) how could it ALL be wrong, made-up….garbage? How?

So part of it was just the whole deal of waking up from a complete sham and being surprise to finally look around me and see the trap I was securely locked in and the other was not having any sense of a religious belief. So I hung on. But I found that the more I learned about my situation and the more truth I uncovered about hubbard and things scientology, I was able to let go.

But it wasn’t easy.
 

DCAnon

Silver Meritorious Patron
DCA I am not interested in playing the game of fighting with you, it serves no purpose.
Go back and read.
:yes:
I have read. I suggest you go back and reread my post, then try to discuss my criticisms. Perhaps it serves no purpose with you, you're like a brick wall according to the Vegas Anons who actually tried to help you before you went all crazy and sell-out on them, but I have hope for others who might read this thread. LRH specifically stated these policies, you believe all LRH policies should be followed exactly as he left them, that must mean that you believe in the destruction of people who disagree with Scientology through violence or any other means to remove them from society. If you think that SPs should be given human rights, you're disagreeing with LRH and squirreling what he said. Let me give you another example.


Suppressive acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist. As persons or groups that would do such a thing act out of self-interest only to the detriment of all others, they cannot be granted the rights ordinarily accorded rational beings.
— L. Ron Hubbard

Therefore, everyone on this website is suppresive because they are trying to reduce and destroy the activities of Scientology. Some more overtly by protesting and criticism, others more covertly by leaving the CoS and practicing outside of the Church ( "It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.") We are all Suppressive Persons according to the specifics of what an SP is written by LRH and quoted above. Some have even been specifically declared suppressive on this website and not just by this current administration, but from LRH's day as well.

It is a SUPPRESSIVE ACT to deal with a Declared SUPPRESSIVE PERSON unless you are the named terminal to deal with the SP (i.e. Sea Org MAA). Per the above referenced PL, "continued adherence to a person or group accurately pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO" is a Suppressive Act.

To maintain a line with, offer support to, or in any way grant credance to such a person indicates nothing more than agreement with that person's destructive intentions and acts. Such dealings in fact act as a covert or overt attempt to undermine and negate the ethics and justice strengths of our ecclesiastical structure.

THEREFORE, by posting on this website with declared suppressive people without being specifically named as the terminal who is supposed to do that, you yourself according to LRH's own words and policies are suppressive. If LRH specifically states what an SP is and there are declared SPs on ESMB from Hubbard's time and Miscavige's time, you're ignoring LRH's own tech by posting here. :) You've squirreled the tech.

So I guess 100% adherence to LRH's tech doesn't include this little tidbit either? Or should we just sweep this part under the rug and pretend you're not squirreling things when you lecture others? :coolwink:
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Now this is typical ad homynym stuff worthy of Sci schills online, kidlet. I disagree with you and pull up relevant quotes and you immediatly try to invalidate my evidence by claiming I'm not a Scientologist, I couldn't possibly know instead of confront the evidence and talking about what I posted. I HAVE actually read the books and I completely understand the context. LRH was a paranoid, hateful person who instituted policies to control people, limit their contact with the outside world, and punish those who disagreed with him by violence or destroying their lives in whatever way he could. If you disagreed with him, you did not deserve human rights and you are to be removed from society by any means necessary. If you disagree with any of his policies, including the ones where he's calling for the utter destruction of people and stripping them of their basic human rights, then you're squirreling the tech.

Prove me wrong.

Great quote DCA. Hubbard said exactly what he said. He said it over and over. He meant exactly what he said.

Suppressive acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist. As persons or groups that would do such a thing act out of self-interest only to the detriment of all others, they cannot be granted the rights ordinarily accorded rational beings.
— L. Ron Hubbard

This exists right now, as extant Church policy. It exhibits and clearly displays the inherent arrogance and elitist view of Hubbard about himself and Scientology. "We Know Best" has always been alive and well in Scientology.

IANSTBH, you can say "oh, LRH cancelled those". But the actual observable fact of reality is that the Church still uses and applies those policies regarding whoever it chooses to label as an "SP". In fact, I have read much about the "confidential Church issues", the ones that no public ever see, the ones that most staff and even SO members never see, the ones that the GO and OSA used and continue to use. Luckily, the court records are getting full of examples where the Church has and continues to conduct self-serving nasty behaviors. The Church can't make THAT go away.

It is all part of the PR aspect of Scientology, where the Church tells its gullible members all sorts of crap that the members happily and willingly accept and believe. Oh, LRH said to not follow those policies huh? THAT is the PR line. That is all that ever was. THAT is what LRH had published to "create the illusion that the policies and practices were canceled". As I mentioned in another post, Hubbard viewed himself as "the law". This view is expressed all throughout his writings. He was an arrogant ego-maniac. He would and did do and say anything to anybody to create whatever ILLUSION was necessary to get what he wanted. People can choose not to see that. Many do. People are largely self-delusional. So are many Scientologists. It is human nature. It is "natural".

Hubbard was a good part of the problem himself. He created the whole machine. He wrote all the policies. And Hubbard, as I have mentioned before, may have very well BELIEVED in everything he said, just as he said it! He may have, in certain ways, figured out various technqiues to "help" a being. I know that some of them "helped" me at the time. There HAS NEVER BEEN a smooth path or "road to freedom" on Earth. Just study history. Those who "made it" are few and far between (Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu). And most people even disagree on that. So, I think that possibly Hubbard actually BELIEVED that he had figured it all out. And believing that, he went nuts with all of the "we are the only ones", "we are the elite", "we are the last flame burning in a universe where the candles burnt out long ago", yada-yada-yada. To him, it may have BEEN the "only valid solution to have come along in a long time to free Man". And that might even be true in certain regards. But why did he have to be such a goofball on the RIGID and ABSOLUTE requirement of 100% "our way or the highway"? He very much sabotaged whatever truth were in the subject of Scientology by all the nutty ethics, justice and organizational policies. And then creating a secret police/intel outfit like the GO and OSA? Mindless. Uttering fucking mindless! In a very real sense, Hubbard was his own worse enemy.

There is the PR of the Church and there is the reality of Church behavior. These two things are often contradictory.

Church members have a difficult time with that - with the many contradictions. They solve this in one of four ways:

1. Denial
2. Justification
3. Develop a nice strong case of cognitive dissonance, or
4. Leave


There are no other ways.

Example of a Contradiction: The Church will proclaim, assert loudly and yap-yap-yap endlessly about "freedom of speech" and "human rights", and then ruthlessly, without any feeling or compassion, crush "freedom of speech" and any semblance of "human rights" using "overwhelming lawsuits", "noisy investigations", and complete lies simply because the Church leadership (Hubbard, Miscavige, whoever) doesn't like what is being said about LRH or the Church. They happily, without any concern or guilt, happily HARM REAL PEOPLE. Of course, they do this by applying the mechanisms of either denial, justification or cognitive dissonance. The PR line is, "we support human rights for all people". The actual TRUTH is observed in the BEHAVIOR of the Church, and their behavior makes it clear that they do NOT support "human rights" or "freedom of speech". They "qualify" these things, and do NOT consider these things "inalienable rights".

"You can say what you want as long as we don't have a problem with it." THAT is the Scientology version of "freedom of speech". LRH defined it that way through extensive policies on the matter, and the Church enforces it that way.

Follow your own LRH policy. LOOK, DON'T LISTEN (HCO PL; I LIKE that policy; applying it can benefit anybody). In other words, observe REAL behavior (which is now well documented in courts all over the world, and on the Internet), and refuse to lie to yourself and refuse to continue to accept the PR lines constantly promulgated by the Church of Scientology (including Hubbard).

Another poster recently mentioned the idea of a "black box" on a recent thread. It is applicable here.

Black Box - the idea is to treat anything as a black box. You can't see in it, you can't observe what sort of "workings" are going on inside, you simply have no way of knowing what intentions, views, ideas, beliefs, attitudes, or logic exists within the black box. I encourage everyone to view EVERYTHING that way. What you CAN OBSERVE is BEHAVIOR. You can see what actions the black box initiates and causes in the world of real situations, events and people around it. All of the assertions, claims, promises, beliefs, theories, and intentions of any person or subject (i.e. LRH, Scientology, Miscavige) are IN the black box. They may be true, they might not be true, but you CAN'T ever really know. Oh, sure, you can BELIEVE that you do. Then you are guilty of making assumptions about something that you REALLY do not know that much about. Base what you choose to decide about anything in terms of its BEHAVIOR. What does it do? How does it do it? What actions are consistent with what it claims and asserts? What things are not consistent with what it claims or assert. But, the true determination of the legitimacy, value or worth of anything lies in BEHAVIOR. Watch THAT, and you will learn much; about many things.

I can supply many more examples of contradictions in LRH data, and between LRH data and Church behavior.

Truth is irrelevant to these bozos. It is all PR. Read the PR Series. It is amazing how the PR Series is nothing but a subject about getting other people to think, believe and agree with what you tell them (with absolutely no regard for "truth"). The ONLY purpose is to get disagreement out of the way (part of OSA's job) and CREATE AGREEMENT - with Hubbard and the Church.

Yes, there is some "good" in there, but there is a great deal of "bad".
 
Last edited:

CornPie

Patron Meritorious
...if one continually and consistently talks about being "possessed" one winds up in a psych ward. With good reason. I sure as hell don't want someone who believes they are "possessed" hanging around my loved ones...
So if scientologists and freezoners (OT3 thru OT7), "talk about" being 'possessed' by Body Thetans (BT's), pro-psych Kha Khan thinks they should be locked away in a psych ward, and for "good reason", as you say, in order that they won't be, "hanging around your loved ones".

You think psychs should have the state sanctioned power to lock people up in psych wards.

But you don't want scientology to lock people up in the RPF.

Sounds like a lot of ESMB'ers would be at risk. I think BT's are laughable BS, but I sure hope you don't have keys to any psych wards.
 
Last edited:

Gadfly

Crusader
So if scientologists and freezoners (OT3 thru OT7), "talk about" being 'possessed' by Body Thetans (BT's), pro-psych Kha Khan thinks they should be locked away in a psych ward, and for "good reason", as you say, in order that they won't be, "hanging around your loved ones".

You think psychs should have the state sanctioned power to lock people up in psych wards.

But you don't want scientology to lock people up in the RPF.

Sounds like a lot of ESMB'ers would be at risk. I think BT's are laughable BS, but I sure hope you don't have keys to any psych wards.

Here's how it would be in my perfect world:

People can think and believe whatever they want.

People should have the right to think and believe whatever they choose.

People should have the right to do whatever they want in accordance with those beliefs (including participating as a member in some RPF, eating rice and beans, working 16 hours each day for $50 a week, no day off for months at a time, standing and cheering in moronic unison at events, etc). You can do whatever you want to do to and with yourself, while following any ideas that you consider to be true and valid for you. People MUST be granted that right.

But, when the ACTIONS of any person harm another person in any way, THEN something must be done to protect the rest of the people from those who have no problem with harming others.

It matters little whether the "beliefs" had any causative or relational role in the harm being caused. Harm another, and you should get "handled".

People can think about, believe in and audit out BTs until the end of time. They can talk about them to whoever is willing to listen. But, if and when you HARM another human being, in any way, THEN you need to be stopped.

...if one continually and consistently talks about being "possessed" one winds up in a psych ward. With good reason. I sure as hell don't want someone who believes they are "possessed" hanging around my loved ones...

That is NOT true. People will generally ONLY end up in a psych ward if their BEHAVIOR becomes a physical threat to others or to his or herself. It is NOT sufficient to lock someone away based solely on their beliefs, hallucinations, illusions or anything else. At least not in the USA. The factor of "actual real or imminent potential physical harm to self or others" MUST be there in some visible and tangible way. In a very real sense, you are free, at least in this country, to think, believe, and communicate about whatever you like. Of course, unless you speak out loudly about the Church of Scientology - then OSA will do all it can to shut you up.
 
Last edited:

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Actually, no it can't. Not unless one ignores the rate or percentage of addiction, and the rate or percentage of adverse consequences.

Yes, you can always find someone who goes off the deep ends with anything. What exactly does that prove? The fact that the people at the extreme end of different bell shaped curves may wind up the same tells you absolutely nothing about the shape of the curve.

It can be said about any spiritual avocation or pursuit of religion because any of them could be described (by someone who disapproved) as addiction. One person's dedication can seem like addiction to someone else.

But if you consider the relative numbers, Scientology has proved far more harmful than most other modern spiritual avocations, religions, or philosophies.

As a student of history, I disagree.


I'm sorry, but particularly relative to the size of the relevant populations, you don't see many Methodists, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, etc. have mental breakdowns, mortgage their homes, load up their credit cards, or disconnect from their families because or at the request of their religions or religious leaders. To pretend otherwise is just plain wrong.

You're mixing apples and oranges. You're mixing (deleterious) effects of Scn with things that are done in the cult. Since I'm discussing Scn outside CofS (and I thought you were, too since your opening post indicates same), then the mortgaging homes, loading up credit cards or disconnection from families does not apply as those things only take place in the cult. You asked (some of) us why we still "cling to the tech" even though we're out. Now you're citing things that only occur within the unhallowed walls of CofS as part of the proof of the problem with Scn.

And having known many Christians, Jews, etc, I disagree that the ratio of Scn'ists w/ problems to that of Christians or Jews or Moslems...etc... w/ problems is greater.


So now the Free Zone and Independent Scientologists are, like the official Church of Scientology, hiding behind the "we're a religion so you can't expect us to actually prove anything, and you can't criticize our beliefs because other religions are equally incredible" defense?

No, I said no such thing and you know that.

I'm saying that people who are interested in and dedicated to ideological paths generally have similar reasons, goals, dreams, etc, regardless of the name of the ideology.


Here is the "so what": The Free Zone and Independent Scientology are marketed and represented as being therapeutic. The problem is that the vast majority of modern, enlightened, well-educated and intelligent people do not think that it is "therapeutic" to seriously address "spiritual infestation, soul fragmentation and possession." On the contrary, if one continually and consistently talks about being "possessed" one winds up in a psych ward. With good reason. I sure as hell don't want someone who believes they are "possessed" hanging around my loved ones.

Not all non CofS Scn'ists believe in bts. And would you bar access to your loved ones (please, let me at 'em. I'm hoping to infest them! Whee! :p :happydance: ) to anyone who had beliefs about their spiritual nature that you thought were incorrect? The world is full of people who think they have certain spiritual and psychological and psychic situations that other people think they don't. My only criteria for barring access to my loved ones (though, actually, I let my loved ones make their own decisions) would be if the person was going to preach to them or something like that. If I knew that all the situation was- was that the guy had certain personal ideological theories and wasn't dumping them all over people, he could hang out with any of my virgin children.


So what? There is no scientific or statistical evidence that "the intentions, postulates, considerations" a PC has about "the incident" have any therapeutic value, or relevance at all.

As a student of psychology, I disagree with you. Many psychologists and therapists look for those very things in talk therapy.

Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence to support a fundamental aspect of Scientology therapy -- i.e., past lives, and most importantly their supposed effect on one's current life. None.

Oh, sure there is. There've been lots of people who reported things from other lives that they'd actually gone and found in the current life as existing.

But in any event, I consider "proof" neither here nor there. When I meet someone who believes in, say, angels- I don't ask for or hope for proof. I really don't care. It's their thing, they can believe in it.


Which has real consequences and opportunity costs. Instead of dealing with the actual cause of a problem, whether it be physical, chemical, or a past traumatic experience in one's real, present life (e.g., being molested as a child, being ignored, etc.) one instead is lead and encouraged to address imaginary incidents in imaginary past lives. That is not confront, it is non-confront. That is not dealing with the problem, it is avoiding the problem. And there is no good evidence that it works, or that the supposed therapeutic mechanism has any validity at all.

Hubbard addresses the phenom of imaginary recalls. He called it dub in and auditors are trained to ascertain that.

I'm not worried.


As I said, Scientology represents not only the triumph of the placebo effect, but addiction to the placebo effect.

I think by those lights, one could deem almost anyone with an avocation- wouldn't even have to be religious- as being an addict.

And while therapeutic gains are subjective, the subjective states are also reported, studied, tested and statistically compared. Happens all of the time in a real science. (Control group) vs. (talk therapy only) vs. (talk therapy + drug X) vs. (drug X only). Cognitive talk therapy vs. rational emotive therapy. Etc., etc.

Good luck trying to do that with most of psychology. There's a lot of it that is quite YMMV. And I'm pro psychology and sayin' that.


Except in Scientology. Or the Freezone. Or Independent Scientology. There we have unlicensed practitioners who are not reviewed or subject to professional discipline by anyone mucking about in people's lives based on untested theories that were largely made up by a paranoid psychopath.

Ideological and philosophical activities don't need proof. People who need proof or who feel it's not there or isn't the right kind or is insufficient have the right not to join in such activities.

I'm not saying it is not the right decision for others simply because I don't like it, or because it is not right for me.

Ah, but I think you are.


I'm saying it is not the right path for others because, for example and without limitation: (a) there is absolutely no scientific or statistical evidence that it works; and (b) the proposed therapeutic mechanisms are irrational; and (c) it prevents people from addressing their problems, and obtaining help, through methods that are not irrational and do have scientific and statistical evidence backing them up.

Oh, there have been stats, there have been various things, but those who don't want to accept them never will.

Auditing doesn't prevent peopel from addressing their problems- it targets them, providing the CSing is good. Though I do not believe people should think of it as the only thing that can be efficacious. I'm not a "Scn only" gal.

No one who's really looking at the situation would expect or demand scientific or statistical evidence of/with/by ideological, philosophical and/or theological pursuits. Maybe some of the more aggressive atheists, perhaps. There are people who want to stamp out all religion and philosophy but hopefully you're not one of those. I don't believe you are, as far as I know.


As I said before, I once had a friend who saw a very well-qualified Shaman. Person had, as I recall, a Ph.D. in anthropology (if not, at least a master's degree) and had studied with well-recognized Shamans in Tibet. He sucked the evil spirits out of the top of my friend's skull. Guess what? She felt better -- for a day. (Placebo effect.) After a day, she was back in the same crap as always.

And what if you met someone who had long lasting "gains" from something like that?

I just read an article about a family whose autistic child seemed to react well to Shamanistic treatments and to animals. So they took the child to Mongolia where there were both. The child has been steadily improving and not just for a day.

I've shared this story a few times here and there:

After both my folks died within 7 months, I was not doing well. Hammering pulse rate, etc. Stress, of course. I went to an FZ auditor to get some auditing about my folks' death. She happened to have a pulse taking gadget that had been given to her by family. She checked my pulse before and after auditing. It did go way down. (cuz it was pretty high) It stayed down.

I don't object to Shamanic treatment of people by sucking evil spirits from the tops of their skulls simply because I don't like it, or because it is not for me, or because I'm somehow irrationally biased. I object because: (a) the proposed mechanism, sucking evil spirits from the top of a person's skull is not only irrational but, to be honest, stupid; (b) there is absolutely no evidence that it actually helps; and (c) engaging in such activities prevented my friend from getting the qualified help she actually needed.

It's up to the person to decide what help he or she wants to get. I'm no expert on shamans, but AFAIK, they aren't trying to forbid people from doing anything else.


I'll conclude by saying this. A Scientologist can always say, "It works for me." "I had wins." "It works for my PCs." "My PCs have wins." And they can always cite anectodal incidents of this or that person having some great recovery.

Recountings of therapeutic experiences are just about always anecdotal.


As can anyone who practices or delivers Shamanism. As can anyone who practices or delivers voodoo. As can anyone who practices or delivers "psychic healing." As can anyone who counsel's people by reading tarot cards, or by dong astrology.

I find it interesting that anecdotal evidence of "it sucked" "it didn't work" are enthusiastically accepted by the same people who criticize anecdotal accounts that were positive. I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere.

There's a guy who used to post here...can't remember his name. He posts on OCMB, too, different nick there. Anyway, he used to be so rah rah for the FZ. Of course critics didn't listen. And his tales were anecdotal as are pretty much all the FZ accounts, right? Well, now he has selected a different path. He doesn't want any FZ stuff and he is against it. He posts a lot about it. All pretty anti. It's anecdotal, too, is the thing. And somehow that anecdotal evidence is happily accepted by critics. Funny how that works.


But you know what? The fact that someone who practices or delivers Shamanism, or practices or delivers voodoo, or practices or delivers "psychic healing," or counsels people by reading tarot cards, or by doing astrology, tells me that "it works," or they "have wins," or their clients benefit isn't good enough for me. I know these practices have no scientific or statistical validity and are, quire frankly, primitive BS.

People have the right to do alternative things. I wouldn't want to live in a world where that was taken away.
 
Top