ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



For the record.

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by alex, Jan 24, 2008.

View Users: View Users
  1. alex

    alex Gold Meritorious Patron

    Although I am currently a public member of the Church of Scientology, in good standing, anything I post is purely my own opinion and may well not coincide with the church's.

    Furthermore I do not have the permission of the church to post here.

    I post under a pseudonym, not any real identity.

    Any impression that I may post with permission of the church, at the behest of the church or with their knowledge is incorrect.

    I have never been a staff member of any church, mission, org or any other officially connected Church of Scientology entity. I was briefly a staff member at a scientology school that was privately owned and operated. I was also a volunteer with CCHR several decades ago.

    My apologies if there has been any confusion about this.

    "alex"
     
  2. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    According to your earlier statements, the 'Church' was aware of your posting activities.

    Is this incorrect?

    Zinj
     
  3. alex

    alex Gold Meritorious Patron

    No that is not correct.

    I have never said the church was aware of my posting, only that "they" (and if you happen to find the post, refer to my description of the competence of the person "sec checking" me) were aware that I read the internet and scientology related stuff therein. Furthermore the issue "they" took with it was in regards to advanced materials and the chance of me becoming "enturbulated".

    My apologies to you zinj for letting you jump to conclusions and erroneous suppositions, but I have warned you.

    I try to be precise in what I write, but I have been less diligent in correcting how others have interpreted it.


    alex
     
  4. Snuffy

    Snuffy Patron Meritorious

    Okay, I'm getting drawn into the curiosity now ... and please do forgive me if I'm perhaps repeating things that have already been discussed - I'm coming to this conversation late.

    Could I ask, Alex, since you say you're a public Scientologist in good standing ... How often are you on course? Academy or Div 6? Where are you on The Bridge? Are you currently recieving metered auditing? If so, what?

    I ask because, in my experience, if you were on metered auditing, wouldn't something like posting to this board come up? Do you consider it an overt as an active Scientologist to be posting to a board called the Ex-Scientologist Message Board?
     
  5. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    It wouldn't necessarily come up in metered auditing. It would depend on what they asked him and what HIS considerations were on it.

    And if he's just on a training or policy course, he might not even be going into session as pc.
     
  6. Snuffy

    Snuffy Patron Meritorious

    That's why I ask. And if he considers it an overt to be posting here, then it would definitely come up in session, as "out-ethics" prevent session gain, which would most likely lead to a red-tag. When I red-tagged, one of the questions my auditor asked was "Have you been engaging in any out-ethics activity on the internet?" But, true, if he's simply on How To Improve Conditions in Life, or The Student Hat, it won't come up at all. Still, I'm interested to know if deep down he considers it an overt to be posting here. And why or why not?
     
  7. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    His group considers it an overt, unless its his hat.

    Man is basically social. Being basically social, a being will try to do what his group says is good, and avoid doing what his group says is bad.

    They will seek admiration and avoid shame.

    The most admirable beingness is an undercover spy who deals with entheta for the good of the group.

    I know that beingness well. It got me lots of admiration in Scientology.

    Posting to internet newsgroups filled with SPs and info I was not supposed to know?

    Not so much.
     
  8. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    So you are saying that according to Ron you are a theety weety, namby pamby, panty-waist dilletante?

    Are you on-lines attending at a CofS establishment or just doing a correspondence course?
     
  9. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Scientology Inc., and its many front groups, the main one being the 'Church' of Scientology, as long as it remains Scientology Inc., will remain sneaky.

    The use of deviousness and deception is ingrained in Scientology Inc., along with several preoccupations, two of which are: 1) the desire to know what others know about Scientology Inc., and to do so through nefarious means, 2) and the desire to achieve some Scientological end by way of tricking/lying to the "wogs," "Homo Saps," "SPs," "DBs," "Squirrels," etc.

    It's something that Scientology - the over-all and actual subject and activity (or operation) of Scientology - does. That's the way "Ron planned it," and that's what hard core Scientologists believe is the "winning" way.

    Scientology, as a subject and as an organization/operation, is centralized, yet compartmentalized to its participants on a "need to know" basis - it's a secretive criminal cult.

    There are Scientologists who don't understand this, and don't understand the nature of (by Hubbard's definition) a "suitable guise," or the use of "multiple channels" of overwhelm or manipulation (as confidentially taught by Hubbard), etc., and don't think that Scientology covert Intelligence Tech can exist because it's not in the 'Green Volumes', or listed in the 'Management Dictionary'.

    Alex keeps changing his story, and it's kind of sad to watch. So without getting into this any further, here are a few posts from a thread on ESMB from a while back - shortly after the banning of the poster, Roadrunner. Alex fits into this as Alex appeared on ESMB as a poster within a day of the banning of Roadrunner.

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=42899&postcount=129

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=42903&postcount=130

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=42909&postcount=132

    Alex, IMO, has no credibility, but does use various tactics, attempting either to manipulate or overwhelm. The tactics are worth noting, and that's about it.
     
  10. Mick Wenlock

    Mick Wenlock Admin Emeritus (retired)

    maybe it does not come up, and that leads to the thought that maybe this whole thing about O/Ws is just bogus and that means it's OK to post even where the cofs doesn't want you to.

    Hmm?
     
  11. Snuffy

    Snuffy Patron Meritorious

    Which, if Alex is a thinking human being, should lead to doubts and his eventual abadonment of CofS tech ...
     
  12. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    If being on Internet and posting on ESMB is not considered an overt rationally, and the Church's stance against it is considered irrational by the pc, then would it read?

    If something reads then is it bound to be something irrational? Would pc be correct in witholding in a session something that is rational and for which there is no need to divulge it because it is irrelevant?

    Could the apparent charge on such an item be coming from elsewhere not yet spotted by the pc?

    .
     
  13. Tanstaafl

    Tanstaafl Crusader

    It would probably read if it were being actively withheld.

    Having said that, I believe there are two melodies I can play in my head that'll give me an F/N. I'll check it out and get back.
     
  14. Pascal

    Pascal Silver Meritorious Patron

    ?

    Alex I have some questions for your so honorable self:

    1. Where are you on DM's Bridge to Total Despair and Bankrupcy?

    2. Why do you stay in the Church? Surely you can get better tech in the FZ and cheaper.
     
  15. Snuffy

    Snuffy Patron Meritorious

    "Love's Theme" by the Love Unlimited Orchestra. If I could hear that at exams, I'd FN everytime, even if DM were sec-checking me.
     
  16. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    If you want to know the LRH tech on this, it comes from the BC tape, "Moral Codes: What is a Withhold?" and others around that time.

    There is no such thing as a devoted Scientologist who does not consider something an overt that the Church considers an overt. If his group is against it, he will know not to do it. He will know it is an overt.

    This "sometimes the pc does not consider it an overt" is a rare case, mostly from lack of "hatting". All the pc needs is some kind of hint from his group that it is considered an overt by his group, and he will know. He will at least have a big withhold, and it will bother him. He will feel guilty and shameful.

    People need to be considered "ethical" by any human group they belong to. They crave the respect of their peers. We are social animals. All of our pride and shame comes from our actions in relation to our group's morals.

    This basic human nature is a primary way Hubbard controlled Scientologists.

    The valence of a Scientologist is bound by the moral code of Scientology, such as crimes and high crimes and Auditor's and supervisors codes, etc.

    Transgressions against those moral codes are the result of other valences. Sec checking "releases" those other valences and fixes the Scientology valence. And so after sec checking, the Scientolgists will have more "integrity". Integrity with what? The moral codes of Scientology which make up his Scientologist Valence.

    That's how sec checking takes apart valences. And that's why sec checking and confessionals, etc are used by totalitarian groups.

    In addition to "rehabilitating" the adherent, it also serves as an intelligence technique.

    C'mon!

    Don't you people know anything about brainwashing?
     
  17. Div6

    Div6 Crusader

    Well, that is certainly 1 reference to this subject. In the first ACC he had this to say:


    1 ACC-44 30.10.53
    THE PARTICLE WITH REGARD TO TIME

    "It isn't an ethical question. Motivators and overt acts are not a question which belongs in morality or ethics. And any time you tangle it with morality or ethics, you're simply letting your preclear agree some more with a system which won't put him up into the line of being an artist again or being able to make space again or anything else.
    Morality is itself an interesting thing because it's a nice game; it's a game of restraint and restriction. When it gets played down to the level of making somebody a slave, that's playing the game a little bit too far and a fellow looks up and he can't quite see that it's a game anymore."



    I tried to false data strip my EO on the above...she just didn't get it....:omg:
     
  18. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    That's because later tech "discoveries" are senior to earlier tech.

    Which is tech.

    So who cares about some LRH reference from 1953?
     
  19. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    By the way, this is also why finding the earlier valence, what some call the person's "true" valence, is key to getting a person out of Scientology.

    Find the valence that they themselves created, before Scientology. Find the moral codes they adopted, such as a belief in the freedom of speech, etc.

    Speak to them in relation to that moral and then they can use that within themselves to compare to the Scientologist Valence moral code, which tells them it is good and admirable to kill the Freedom of Speech.

    Once that one is cracked open, the rest is history.

    Right, Alex?
     
  20. Alan

    Alan Gold Meritorious Patron

    Excellent Tech write up Alanzo! :)

    Sec Checking takes apart non optimum - can't be controlled by Scio valences - added to that is the reinforcement of subtle approval based control mechanisms implanted by the use of the Sec Check question itself - as the pc is being indoctrinated into what is considered the Scio morality.

    This then creates an "artificial approval whore identity" for the pc known as a Scientologist.

    That's also why sec checking and confessionals, etc are used by totalitarian groups to take apart non optimum - can't be controlled by other totalitarian valences. Again the confessional implants the "artificial approval whore identity" based on the groups considered correct behavior.

    These "artificial identities" are very powerful as they are under the control of the "approvers" - not under the control of the pc.

    It makes it very difficult to leave as one feels unmocked - without the controlling "approver." :omg:

    Alan