What's new

Black and White

kate8024

-deleted-
I see you keep posting this "good and bad" theory of Hubbard's "technology". A few weeks ago I suggested that you look at the "Hubbard Law of Commotion" so you might gain a better understanding of how it works.

Not to sound too snarky here, but I see you keep having this idea that I'm only interested in the good parts - doesn't starting a thread pointing out a contradiction in his work go against this idea? I'm just as interested in cataloging the negative parts and inconsistencies as I am finding the good parts. I'm not on some quest to uncover the nuggets of iron pyrite buried in the horse crap - I believe its there but that the only way to uncover it is to manually separate it out and I think it might not even be there but the only way to know is to look. In your analogy you seem to be stating there is 50% good stuff and 50% bad stuff - I think that's being rather generous.

Keep in mind I'm a psychology and religion major - having a more than cursory understanding of this topic is of direct interest to me and Scientology is not the only religion that I evaluate like this - it's just the only one that is a primary topic on this forum.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
There are a million people pouring over the words of other philosophers and supposed prophets but not many going through these works without bias. I merely have a hypothesis that there are some nuggets of good stuff in all the crap and am testing that hypothesis. I think its good to look at both the good and bad in a somewhat academic manner and at least catalog inconsistencies like the Black and White processing one for latter further investigation.

It seems to me that there must already be a bias in your work if you are looking for "good" rather than looking for facts. How do you even define "good"? How do you operationalise that in a valid academic study? That is a genuine question by the way. I'm not having a go at you.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
1952 Black and White processing? I have never tried it. My view now is maybe there is/was something useful about the procedure and maybe there is/wasn't. How to find out? Ignore the theory and Hubbard's bullshit PR and marketing hype and try it out and see what happens.

"Try it out" means try it per the instructions and make sensible adjustments as needed. "Sensible" of course requires experience and without trying it I don't really have pointers. It's just that I've done a lot of "trying out stuff" for PaulsRobot and it has been surprisingly easy to discard what is fruitless and make adjustments that seem to work well, or alternatively give up after poking around for a while and deciding the whole thing is too far off the mark.

I can't be the only person around willing and able to do this.

Paul

I try a lot of the processes on myself as well. I find doing the paulsrobot3 ruds then some zazen meditation is a great way to prep my mind for the non-Dianetic processes.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
It seems to me that there must already be a bias in your work if you are looking for "good" rather than looking for facts. How do you even define "good"? How do you operationalise that in a valid academic study? That is a genuine question by the way. I'm not having a go at you.

'Good' can be hard to define fully - though one of the main things I consider 'good' are processes which can be completely extracted from Scientology and still be useful. 'Good' is also indications of proper research having already been done on a process. There isn't much in the way of that one ;-) but there are some processes which at least on myself seem to be useful for something - whether that thing is what it was intended to do is a different story.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
1952 Black and White processing? I have never tried it. My view now is maybe there is/was something useful about the procedure and maybe there is/wasn't. How to find out? Ignore the theory and Hubbard's bullshit PR and marketing hype and try it out and see what happens.

"Try it out" means try it per the instructions and make sensible adjustments as needed. "Sensible" of course requires experience and without trying it I don't really have pointers. It's just that I've done a lot of "trying out stuff" for PaulsRobot and it has been surprisingly easy to discard what is fruitless and make adjustments that seem to work well, or alternatively give up after poking around for a while and deciding the whole thing is too far off the mark.

I can't be the only person around willing and able to do this.

Paul

I did experiment with black and white processing.

Interesting things happen when you actually DO ANYTHING with your imagination (with discipline).

Now, I don't know which I did first, Scientology or New Age, but if I "turn anything white", it tends to eventually vanish. For instance, if I notice an idea in my space that I feel is not serving me well, or which seems "negative", I surround it with golden light (white), keep turning it white and light (even when it wants to go black and solid), and again, it tends to "blow".

I did play around with simply turning areas in my mental space black, and then white, and then back again. I don't remember now exactly what happened, and I may be forgetting other aspects of the method, but I did enjoy it. I did like that it was "significance-free".

Anytime I contact a strange energy in my space, I don't try to "understand it intellectually", but I simply see it as white, golden, and fill it with love (and non-resistance). No matter how often or hard it resists turning white, I persist, until it gets easy (effortless), and until it explodes like a sun of flashing white light. I do often improvise with all of the various ideas and techniques I have encountered over the years.

Interestingly, most people report heading towards the WHITE LIGHT in near-death experiences (and this is usually accompanied by a sense of feeling light and filled with joy). For whatever reasons, few people head "towards the black or darkness" when they report near-death experiences. I have wondered if the associations with black (bad, evil, heavy, burdensome, etc.) and white (good, kind, light, freeing, etc.) are socially manufactured, or if they might exist in some primordial archetypical manner.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
1952 Black and White processing? I have never tried it. My view now is maybe there is/was something useful about the procedure and maybe there is/wasn't. How to find out? Ignore the theory and Hubbard's bullshit PR and marketing hype and try it out and see what happens.

"Try it out" means try it per the instructions and make sensible adjustments as needed. "Sensible" of course requires experience and without trying it I don't really have pointers. It's just that I've done a lot of "trying out stuff" for PaulsRobot and it has been surprisingly easy to discard what is fruitless and make adjustments that seem to work well, or alternatively give up after poking around for a while and deciding the whole thing is too far off the mark.

I can't be the only person around willing and able to do this.

Paul


A sensible approach!

But, lets advise people attempting this to understand that if the "Black & White" does not (per Hubbard) undercut the running of engrams and all other symptom-specific auditing techniques, it does not mean it didn't work.

The process is only "not working" in the sense that it vastly overestimated the case state of Humans and they simply need to be set-up with Ron's undercuts such as the Grades, Life Repair, Purif, Basic Books, Int R/D, PTS R/D, Happiness R/D, FPRD, Power Processes, R6EW, Clearing Course, OT III, Drug R/D, GF40 for Resistive Cases, OT I, OT II, OT V, OT VII, Old OT IV-VII, OT III Expanded and the entire Training side of the Grade Chart.

Black & White works, I swear, if you are "ready" for it. LOL
 

Veda

Sponsor
Thanks.

And, yes, the "Creation of Human Ability" (like other books) laid out a certain path to OT. CHA had "Route I" and "Route II". Hey, they need more than one "Route" because not everyone goes can go "clear" and do the "Grand Tour" of the universe with just the command "Be 3 feet back of your head".

But half the world's population (per Hubbard) can be easily cleared with just 7 words, upon which time they can "be on Mars" and "be on Venus" et al.

Ron apparently left out the most preferred "Route" which is Route III. That's the Route that leads out of Scientology and (truly) to "A world without insanity".

Talking to "old timers," who were involved in the mid 1960s, I encountered descriptions of Scientologists attempting to do "Route 1," and then "caving in." These, it seems, had been people who had just attained the "state of Clear" in the 1966 period, during the small window of time when Clear was IT, and there were only "OT exercises" (notably Route 1) after "Clear."

Why were they caving in? After all, Route 1 was publicly available in a book, for years, and nobody was "caving in" from it. Turns out that these "Clears" were "caving in" due to the belief that they had "falsely attested to the Clearing Course."

This grim situation ended when Hubbard, soon after, came out with "OT 2," which looked a lot like Clearing Course part two, even though it wasn't called that, and the "Clears," who had been in a panic because they couldn't "do Route 1," were tremendously relieved.

Not that long after, OT 3 was released, and then the old OT levels were released one at a time.

Then came "the fabulous OT boosters," the very expensive "Ls."

And a few years after that came "NOTs" ("the second wall of fire") which was supposed to do what the Clearing Course, then OT2, then OT 3, before it were supposed to do.

It seems that Hubbard was envisioning the "third wall of fire," around 1980, when he became distracted and decided to write science fiction novels instead.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
In your analogy you seem to be stating there is 50% good stuff and 50% bad stuff - I think that's being rather generous.

I doubt HH means THAT! :no:

What he means is that for every statement or datum, there is usually an opposite statement or datum.

Personally I think that is quite a large exaggeration. I do see that many contradictions do exist though, but not at the same level or context. And not like HH says. That isn't to say that Scientology isn't filled with an extreme amount of contradictions - it is.

For example, Hubbard states in the essay on Personal Integrity that a person should should base what they accept as true on personal observations. I largely agree with that. Hubbard doesn't actually say anywhere that one should do the opposite. In fact, he talks quite a bit about how "lookingness" (observation) is senior to and far above "thinkingness" (reason, logic, fixed ideas, beliefs, biases, etc.). He is consistent in THAT. He is consistent in the THEORY (in this case).

But, a horrible contradiction does exist. In real life, in Scientology, based on many OTHER quite unrelated policies (justice policies, list of suppressive acts, etc.), a person will often find that he or she CANNOT say what he or she has observed if it runs counter to anything Hubbard or Scientology management has claimed, stated or asserted! So, while the essay in itself is a great idea, and while the theory is NOT really contradicted about the same subject, due to OTHER policies, one cannot actually express the fruits of ones own sincere, honest and careful observation within the Church of Scientology.

For another example, Hubbard talks a great deal about communication. He calls it the "universal solvent" (I think is wrong about that - it is actually "love"). Hubbard says that the ability of Grade Zero is the ability to communicate with anyone on any subject. Except that, again, IN REAL LIFE in Scientology, and again due to ADMINISTRATIVE rules, one is unable to communicate with a great many things. One is forbidden from communicating with SPs. One is disallowed from viewing ANY negative information about Hubbard or Scientology (no matter whether it might be true or not). In other words, practically-speaking, one cannot speak freely with anyone on any subject. In fact, free communication is barred about many things on Scientology.

This is more insane, because any intelligent person must be able to access ALL information, study it, make judgments, and then decide upon what the truth might be based on the fruits of ones own careful and diligent observations. And while that idea aligns with SOME of what Hubbards says, again, it cannot be practiced due to various ADMINISTRATIVE RULES (mostly having to do with "ethics" and "justice").

I love Hoaxie, but he can get carried away at times, and to me, he sometimes sees "trolls" and "handlings" where NONE actually exist. He did so with Mark Baker (even though Baker was a pain in the ass in various ways). But, I don't see it good to pock a person out and continually jump on them (here on ESMB) - it almost becomes a form of cyber-stalking. To me, it can get obsessive. Now, granted I have myself occasionally succumbed to that sort of less-than-honorable urge . . . . :duh: :ohmy:

I like your postings Kate. You are at a certain point at coming to understand Scientology. Just as I am. We each add a little something to the BIG PICTURE that transcends all of our own unique, but limited views and understandings.
 
Last edited:

kate8024

-deleted-
I did experiment with black and white processing.

This one is still on my todo list. I had noted this particular contradiction in my initial post on this board, but I just started re-reading about it a couple days ago to do some playing around with it.

Interesting things happen when you actually DO ANYTHING with your imagination (with discipline).

That's for sure, and I think that's a good way to approach all of this stuff.

Interestingly, most people report heading towards the WHITE LIGHT in near-death experiences (and this is usually accompanied by a sense of feeling light and filled with joy). For whatever reasons, few people head "towards the black light or darkness" when they report near-death experiences. I have wondered if the associations with black (bad, evil, heavy, burdensome, etc.) and white (good, kind, light, freeing, etc.) are socially manufactured, or if they might exist in some primordial archetypical manner.

I once did extreme fasting, isolation, and sleep deprivation for a couple weeks which of course quickly led to a hallucinatory state and I spent a lot of that time talking about this with some 'entities' that came to visit me. The conversation was quite involved and it seems to me based on those conversations that there is an in-built archetype regarding this - to summarize what was an almost 2 week discussion.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
It seems that Hubbard was envisioning the "third wall of fire," around 1980, when he became distracted and decided to write science fiction novels instead.

Mmmm? Aren't they the same?

Hubbard's writings in Scientology about ANY "wall of fire" and his science fiction novels? :omg: :hysterical:
 

kate8024

-deleted-
I doubt HH means THAT! :no:

What he means is that for every statement or datum, there is usually an opposite statement or datum.

Oh I know he didn't really mean that, I just disagree and think there are more opposite statements than there opposites of those opposites. (I meant that to sound confusing).
 

kate8024

-deleted-
It seems to me that there must already be a bias in your work

Oh also I wanted to mention that I don't really consider the work I am doing now on this subject to be the 'real' work that I intend to do with it - rather this is more preliminary research needed to gain a better understanding of the topic prior to doing the real work.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
That there are opposites for everything in Scientology. I think there are a lot, but its not 50% statements and 50% opposite of those statements.

What there are MORE of is that many of Hubbard's "good ideas" cannot be realized or achieved with Scientology. It isn't that there are contradictions, not in the same context or at the same level.

For example, Hubbard says that it is an aim of Scientology that all people should enjoy free speech. You are right, in that he never says that the opposite is true. Not in so many words. BUT, he did write many other policies and orders that effectively SQUASH free speech! No Scientologists may EVER speak freely if the comments are anything other than 100% supportive of Hubbard, Miscavige, Scientology, and Scientology management. That fact isn't due to some alteration by DM, but is based on MANY exact Hubbard orders and policy.

So, while Scientology asserts the importance of free speech, in reality, it cannot be practiced in Scientology. And, it is due to OTHER policies and orders that make this so.

Thus, another contradiction. There ARE a GREAT MANY of these.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Hoaxie's Law of Commotion is 100%, not at all, but there ARE a LARGE AMOUNT of contradictions (as I described above and earlier). Making this a "law" is an exaggeration - poetic license to make a point.

And Hoaxie brilliantly portrays many of these nutty contradictions in his wonderful posts!

Another contradiction (I could go on and on for pages)? An "OT" is supposed to be stable, powerful, and able to withstand all sorts of "effects". Yet, NONE can be allowed to talk to an SP, or even "read" negative data (aka "entheta") for fear of going PTS and caving in! One really has to be stupid or quite blinded NOT to see the many contradictions.

Of course, there has NEVER been an "OT" as defined and described by Hubbard, so it is all a bit moot.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Oh also I wanted to mention that I don't really consider the work I am doing now on this subject to be the 'real' work that I intend to do with it - rather this is more preliminary research needed to gain a better understanding of the topic prior to doing the real work.

I would actually be interested to read about your methodology if you are willing to share it and know what other religions you have applied it to with what results if you can share that without outing yourself. I am really against Scientology, as you know, but I am curious about what you're doing and I don't think I should be afraid of knowledge just because it may not confirm my own biases. And now that you're more open and out-there about where you stand it's not that I have a problem with you having a differing point of view per se. I might not agree that your methodology is valid perhaps, or how you interpret results or whatever, but I don't have a problem with you looking at it. I don't like it when the cult funds scholars to give favourable opinions, though.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
What there are MORE of is that many of his "good ideas" cannot be realized or achieved with Scientology. It isn't that there are contradictions, not in the same context or at the same level.

For example, Hubbard says that it is an aim of Scientology that all people should enjoy free speech. You are right, in that he never says that the opposite is true. Not in so many words. BUT, he did write many other policies and orders that effectively SQUASH free speech! No Scientologists may EVER speak freely if the comments are anything other than 100% supportive of Hubbard, Miscavige, Scientology, and Scientology management. That fact isn't due to some alteration by DM, but is based on MANY exact Hubbard orders and policy.

So, while Scientology asserts the importance of free speech, in reality, it cannot be practiced in Scientology. And, it is due to OTHER policies and orders that make this so.

Thus, another contradiction. There ARE a GREAT MANY of these.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Hoaxie's Law of Commotion is 100%, not at all, but there ARE a LARGE AMOUNT of contradictions (as I described above and earlier). Making this a "law" is an exaggeration - poetic license to make a point.

And Hoaxie brilliantly portrays many of these nutty contradictions in his wonderful posts!

Another contradiction (I could go on and on for pages)? An "OT" is supposed to be stable, powerful, and able to withstand all sorts of "effects". Yet, NONE can be allowed to talk to an SP, or even "read" negative data (aka "entheta") for fear of going PTS and caving in! One really has to be stupid or quite blinded NOT to see the many contradictions.

Having been on staff I think it is close to 50%, because you're not just talking about "tech" as red on white. You live and breathe the green on white. And for me it felt like we were keeping two sets of books - one for what we'd tell new people interested in Scientology and the other being the way it actually was. But both had to be true at the same time because Hubbard had to be right. And you HAD to be able to believe both at the same time in order to keep working there. It was awful. But I always pictured it as these two ledgers... or books - especially at the end when I was questioning and close to leaving.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Having been on staff I think it is close to 50%, because you're not just talking about "tech" as red on white. You live and breathe the green on white. And for me it felt like we were keeping two sets of books - one for what we'd tell new people interested in Scientology and the other being the way it actually was. But both had to be true at the same time because Hubbard had to be right. And you HAD to be able to believe both at the same time in order to keep working there. It was awful. But I always pictured it as these two ledgers... or books - especially at the end when I was questioning and close to leaving.

I know what you mean.

One of the worse things about Scientology and Scientologists is that they always have to pretend to be the IDEAL - when it rarely exists!

There are NO clears or OTs, yet they have to pretend that there are!

It is a crime (or maybe a High Crime) to denigrate the state of Clear or OT. In other words, if you attested to either Clear or OT, and don't ACT LIKE ONE 24/7 (whatever acting like one means), then YOU are guilty! It doesn't matter that none of them really have the asserted abilities delineated by Hubbard about Clear and OT, only that they tarnish the IMAGE of clear and OT. It is about imaginary "mock-ups", and NOT about reality.

No OT has attained full cause over MEST, and thought, both subjective and anywhere, but they have to PRETEND that they have!

The self-delusion is as thick as mud.

The cognitive dissonance in the minds of Scientologists has got to be some of the most intense of any variety - due to the endless contradictions between theory and practice, between reality and ideals, between the claims and the observable, and on and on.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
I would actually be interested to read about your methodology if you are willing to share it and know what other religions you have applied it to with what results if you can share that without outing yourself. I am really against Scientology, as you know, but I am curious about what you're doing and I don't think I should be afraid of knowledge just because it may not confirm my own biases. And now that you're more open and out-there about where you stand it's not that I have a problem with you having a differing point of view per se. I might not agree that your methodology is valid perhaps, or how you interpret results or whatever, but I don't have a problem with you looking at it. I don't like it when the cult funds scholars to give favourable opinions, though.

At the moment I'm still working on establishing formal methods regarding Scientology.

One thing I am trying to do is separate out Dianetic and non-Dianetic processes and determine the interdependencies and such between them. I'm currently much more interested in the non-Dianetic processes and the types of mental states they induce. For theses processes I'm working on isolating them as much as possible from Scientology itself in order to judge each process on its own merits. Currently I'm only experimenting on myself to try to determine which things are the most interesting to (hopefully) eventually study for real - though that's years out at this point. Developing correct methodology is very important to me so I'm certainly open to suggestions on how to do things in the most correct way possible.

I want to be clear that I'm not looking to validate Scientology as a whole - I really could care less about Scientology being validated. I'm also not at all funded by the church - I'm pretty sure if they knew who I was I would be declared an SP very quickly but at the moment in the interest of research I'm trying to maintain an not-SP status with them without actually giving them any of my money.

Most of my research regarding other religions is very different than that regarding Scientology.

I'm currently working on sort of charting out the various cosmologies presented in the various Gnostic texts and at some point I plan to see how these map to in-built and developed archetypes that we have. I think that some of the more mythology-type stuff in Scientology can also be mapped to similar or the same archetypes so there might be some similarities between Scientology and Gnostic Christianity there but that's just speculation at the moment.

I've spent a fair amount of time researching the work of Dr. John Dee and Edward Kelley in their "communications with angels", especially regarding the language that the angels spoke. They were given translations for parts of it, but the majority of it is untranslated. So I have been using various methods to find possible translations of untranslated words ranging from linguistic methods and writing a computer program to do statistical analysis on the works to inducing a trance and asking the meaning of word (and documenting how any possible translation was derived).

One thing I want to eventually research as well is the role of fundamentalism on the human psyche. Most of the bad things about fundamentalism are obvious, especially at the social level - but I wonder if there are some potential positive effects on the individual human mind and if so what they are.

I'm back in school starting in 2 weeks to work on psychology and religion degrees so the above is kind of hobby research at the moment that I hope to eventually evolve into more serious research.
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

Most of my research regarding other religions

-snip-

I'm back in school starting in 2 weeks to work on psychology and religion degrees so the above is kind of hobby research at the moment that I hope to eventually evolve into more serious research.

You keep saying that you regard Scientology as a religion. Before you go back to school, I hope you notice that there are many who do not share that view.


Video on Religious cloaking - the affidavit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZvqeGrbILw

The complete document:

http://www.lermanet.com/reference/brennan-dec.pdf


60min028.jpg



___________​


Quoted posts by others from Ex Scientologist Message Board are in sienna (brown).

By Rmack:

I just had to vent a little about a pet peeve I have. People who, even though critical of this cult, still call it a church.

It's well documented that the whole church facade was taken on by Laffy for the benefits it bestowed, like potential tax exemption, the e-meter being protected as a 'religious artifact' to avoid being prosecuted for using it to treat medical conditions, etc. They went from being a clinic with 'doctors' to a religion with 'ministers', but the practices stayed pretty much the same.

Scientology is a money making fraudulent cult, not a church.

I like the adage attributed to Abraham Lincoln that goes 'How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg? Answer; four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.'



__________​


Tax exempt status had been sought by Hubbard since he first launched his "religion angle," complete with ministers in clerical collars, crosses on "Churches," and the accompanying benign-sounding 'Creed of the Church of Scientology', meant to invite agreement from "wogs," as they were "gradiently" led into agreement with the idea that Scientology is a "religion."


It's the religion angle and religious cloaking that allow Scientology to get away with so much fraudulent and abusive behavior.



___________​


Video about the IRS deal with Scientology:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ewQ8bgMMqnQ


__________​


From Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter of October 1962, 'Religion':

"Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organizations. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors."


This man was convicted of "interfering with a religion," for picketing outside Scientology's heavily armed, razor-wire enclosed, base outside Hemet, California. He was sent to jail.

kh-hero.jpg


Here's the law on the case: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2001-May/002573.html (Thanks, Teanntas.)


__________​


From Dulloldfart:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scientology_organizations

Principal Organizations
Religious Technology Center (RTC)
Church of Spiritual Technology (CST)
Church of Scientology International (CSI)
Church of Scientology of California (CSC)

Trademark Service Organizations
Inspector General Network (IGN)
IGN International AB
Dianetics Centers International (DCI)
Dianetics Foundation International (DFI)
Hubbard Dianetics Foundation (HDF)
WISE, Inc.

Financial Trusts
Author's Family Trust
Church of Scientology Religious Trust (CSRT)
Scientology International Reserves Trust (SIRT)
Trust for Scientologists
United States Parishioners Trust
Flag Ship Trust (FST)
International Publications Trust
Scientology Defense Trust

Financial Service Organizations
SOR Services Ltd.
Nesta Investments Ltd.
FSO Oklahoma Investments Corporation
Theta Management Ltd. (TML)

Publishing Houses & Publication Organizations
Golden Era Productions
Author Services Inc. (ASI)
Bridge Publications Inc. (BPI)
New Era Publications ApS
Scientology Publications Ltd.

Secular & Social Management Entities
Association for Better Living and Education International (ABLE)
Applied Scholastics Inc.
Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR)
Criminon International
Narconon International
Way to Happiness Foundation International
World Institute of Scientology Enterprises International (WISE)

Other Management Organizations
Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International (CC Int.)
International Hubbard Ecclesiastical League of Pastors (IHELP)
Scientology Missions International (SMI)

Service Organizations
<snip mostly Church names>

Membership Organizations

Unincorporated Associations
International Association of Scientologists (IAS)
Hubbard Association of Scientologists International (HASI)

Membership Service Organizations
International Association of Scientologists Administrations, N.V. (IASA)
Membership Services Administrations (UK) Ltd. (MSA)

There are 41 names there, only 5 of which include the C-word. Local service orgs in the US and other religion-favouring countries usually include the C-word, and in countries that don't favour religions they don't. Expediency reigns supreme.

Question for any residents of the "non" countries: when the cult hits the news there, is the main organization ever referred to, or is it just the name of the local branch? For example, does the media in Russia ever refer to CSI spokeperson Karin Pouw by name and title?

Paul



__________​


Scientology has a decades long history of using the "religion angle" and "religious cloaking" to gain advantage, and to exempt itself from inspection and from laws.

Scientology is a for-profit blackmail-collecting global scam masquerading as a religion.

Prof. Steven Kent on 'Is Scientology a Religion?':

http://www.bible.ca/scientology-not-religion-kent.htm


Those who dislike religion, and think they're criticizing Scientology by criticizing religion, are being tricked by Hubbard's religion angle, and Scientology's religious cloaking, every bit as much as those who like religion and defer to Scientology because it's a "religion."


It's rare to encounter a Scientologist who knows what Scientology is, not because they're stupid, but because Scientology discourages its followers from finding out what it actually is and, ultimately, places them in a state of mind where they don't want to know even when they have the opportunity.

A few bus loads of people such as this are useful for Public Relation purposes, especially when they are wearing big yellow Scientology is my religion buttons.

These are the well-intentioned dupes, and are an essential component of the Scientology charade.


Responding to the assertion by another poster that Scientology's status as a (tax exempt, and exempt from various laws) "Church" is a "done deal":


_________​


From Div6:

I'm with Veda on this. Only in the US is it anywhere near "a done deal". In mexico it is a "philosophical society."


___________​


From Senator Nick Xenophon:

"What we are seeing is a worldwide pattern of abuse and criminality... On the body of evidence, this is not happening by accident; it is happening by design.

In 1955, L. Ron Hubbard secretly authored this booklet http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?2697-Table-of-Contents-Psychopolitics-revisited to be used as a black propaganda vehicle for attacking his critics, by identifying them with Russian Communism. Some years later, the booklet slowly faded into obscurity. It was no longer useful as a propaganda vehicle. During the period of the Vietnam war, Hubbard had decided that "Nazi," not "Communist," was a more effective "button" to push, to influence public opinion to Scientology's advantage. Another reason for this booklet fading into obscurity was that Hubbard was now using many of its ideas and methods on his own followers, and on others. Hubbard had been doing this for many years prior, but it was now intensified. These ideas and methods are interwoven into Scientology doctrine, and integral to that doctrine.

Brainwashing-front.jpg


Senator Nick Xenophon continued:

Scientology is not a religious organisation. It is a criminal organisation that hides behind its so-called religious beliefs."

It's noteworthy that the first official body to recognize Hubbard's use of this booklet's ideas and methods was from Australia in the 1960s and, now, another Australian official is continuing the tradition of insightful and courageous truth-telling regarding the secretive cult of Scientology.


__________​


From Free to shine:

Why not just call it scientology???

I have never called it a church and I never will. I don't even use a capital S unless it's the start of a sentence. I was there when it was decided that it should be a religion, and I know what a farce it was.

I think it's only those who feel the need to be politically correct who use the word "Church", in the media and so on to avoid getting dogpiled for 'religious discrimination'.


Group2.jpg



_________​


From Lermanet:

In 1994, one of the used (Im not saying correct, just one of methods used) ways to guess who was either OSA or duped by osa or too dumb to be of any worth to the expose scientology movement anyway, was to see if they could say "XENU"...

Ten years later, the rule of thumb *I* use, on all except for the very-newest-escapees, to determine this is DO THEY CALL IT A CHURCH or refer to it as a RELIGION. I feel it works for me, you're mileage may vary.

Thoroughly understanding the materials collected on my RELIGIOUS CLOAKING PAGE leads to the inescapable conclusion that $cientology is an elaborate hypnotic FRAUD that has been CLOAKED using RELIGIOUS CLOAKING.



This point is not lost on their own lawyers, and thorough application of such comprehensions demonstrated here.. in the last time $cientology tried to depose me in 1997 at the Law Offices of Mr Sinclair in Alexandria Virginia, a camera had been set up to video this, if you want proof ask OSA to post this video:

DEPOSITION STARTS

Clam lawyer Rosen asked: Mr Lerma, why do you continue to say bad things about the Church of Scientology???

Lerma: Mr Rosen, in your question, are you referring to the international psychopolitical terrorist organization running a rapidly shrinking but still brisk fraud upon innocent citizens worldwide dba scientology and related entities and front groups???

Rosen (Face gets red) said (acting angry) (waving arms around) : Mr. Lerma, you can't describe the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY that way.

Lerma: Mr Rosen are trying to trick me into committing perjury on your behalf?

Rosen: This deposition is OVER.

THE END.


scientology-is-not-religion-survey.jpg



__________​


"Because it's protected as a religion... it's able to get away with a lot of things."

Lawrence Wright, 2013


__________​


"Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors."

L. Ron Hubbard, 1962


__________​


Hard Sell, a.k.a. Crush Sell, has been part of Scientology since the 1960s. I witnessed Hard Sell tech being used in the early 1970s. The idea, as I recall Hubbard explaining it in the Hard Sell pack, is that people ("wogs," "Homo Saps," "Raw meat" and, apparently, even Scientologists) are naturally in a sort of hypnotic daze, and will respond to being told what to do, if that telling is done effectively. Trickery is also part of Hard Sell tech, as is "ruthlessness," after all, look at what's at stake, the eternity of every Man, Woman, and Child on this planet and your own endless agonized trillions and, besides, successful Scientology sales people lived very well. They were "up stats" and were rewarded.


__________​


"Make money. Make more money. Make other people produce so as to make more money." L. Ron Hubbard, 1972


__________​


Hubbard's "religion angle" and "religious cloaking" were aimed largely at achieving tax exempt status. When this occurred in the USA in 1993, the kind of pure-money-sucking that's now done in Scientology became realistic. Donations to Scientology are tax exempt, and those donating can make deductions on their income tax returns. In effect, the United Sates government is supporting the Scientology cult, just as Hubbard had envisioned.

However, even before the Scientology money-sucking vacuum cleaner engine was turned on full, Hard Sell was going strong in the "Church" of Scientology.


__________​



"He [Hubbard] stated [that] coming ashore would be profitable, because we could get so many more people to the Flag Land Base, as it was to be called, for auditing and training, and he wanted to concentrate on getting professionals to the Land Base because, of course, they had more accessible money. They had pension funds. They had children's education funds, and some of these he named, that were accessible."

Hana Eltringham, from the 'Secret Lives' BBC program:

See 3:20: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhULw6qarW4


"What worried me was that I saw some things he did and statements he made that showed his intentions were different from what they appeared to be...

"He [Hubbard] told me he was obsessed with an insatiable lust for power and money. He said it very emphatically. He thought it wasn't possible to get enough. He didn't say it as if it was a fault, just his frustration that he couldn't get enough."

David Mayo, 1986, from an interview with author Russell Miller


_________


Scientology is a cult operating as a business masquerading as a religion.
 
Top