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

Featured Hubbard on Xenu, Class 8 course

Discussion in 'Scientology-related Videos' started by Veda, Jul 7, 2008.

View Users: View Users
  1. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    There can't be consenting adults without informed consent. Scientology's "upper levels" are secret, and even when exposed, Scientology will seek to mislead, or simply deny their content.

    OT 3 was presented as removing the final barrier to full OT. It didn't do that. No matter how much Scientologists chant, "It's true for me! It's true for me!" OT 3, compared to the initial hype, flopped.

    There are still some Scientologists, from the late 1960s/early 1970s, who reminisce about the good old days, when 'Advance!' magazine had those neat "OT Success Stories."

    "Fancy free and perceiving all."

    Years later, it was revealed that many of the most exciting accounts of OT abilities were fabricated by 'Apollo' PR.

    That doesn't mean, necessarily, that extraordinary sensitivities, or abilities, or the "paranormal," are impossible; it does mean that Scientology, under its founder's direction, practiced fraud on its own membership, and sold a "Bridge to OT" that wasn't.
  2. Pixie

    Pixie Crusader

    :laugh: Good one. You're doing great Art! :thumbsup:
  3. Axiom142

    Axiom142 Gold Meritorious Patron

    If Hubbard really was a super-OT as he claimed to be, then why hasn’t he stepped in and reformed the CoS?

    I can’t imagine that any sane person could look at the facts and think that the CoS was really doing well and achieving the stated aims of Scientology. So, why has he not fixed the ‘church’? Perhaps because he can’t? Surely, if the Tech worked and what Hubbard said was true, then he is needed more today than ever before?

    I asked the question “What is LRH doing now?”, when I was still tenuously clinging to the illusions created by Scientology. All I got was an instruction to listen to RJ38. This didn’t answer the question at all. It was inconceivable to me that he would just abandon Scientology when the job was only half-done.

    I don’t think that it could have continued in the same way. The CoS inherited Hubbard’s insanities and the disintegration was inevitable. Just as another cataclysm will happen again soon. Look at all the contradictions in the Tech and you will see that no organisation can hope to follow it to the letter and remain sane.

    I agree with you that there is much in the subject of Scientology that is valuable. But how do we separate the good from the bad, the useful from the destructive? Well-intentioned people have tried to do this and been attacked by the CoS. Many have had lives ruined.

    I’d be interested to hear your views on how the good parts can be salvaged.

  4. Art

    Art Guest

    "Axiom 142. An organism is as healthy and sane as it is self-determined."

    (Just to let you know your nick is appreciated.:) )

    IMO, a lot of people are currently working on putting the line up back together again. In the meantime, I've heard some pretty sane references about reading books such as Creation of Human Ability, and the Tech Vols 1 - 3 which contain early materials stressing the philosophical side of Scn.

  5. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    There is no doubt that 'brainwashing" took place inside Scientology as a result of LRH's express intent. It is still happening there today - sickeningly so.

    It is easily reciognised there and so one can easily shake it off.

    However, the really insidious brainwashing is the one where one least expects it, where it masquerades as "free discussion". For example, who would suspect that this very discussion board indulages in the nefarious activity.

    No? Consider the following quote from chapter two of the book "Rape of the Mind" that was offerred as recommended reading to us recently:

    "Such is the Pavlovian device: repeat mechanically your assumptions and suggestions, diminish the opportunity of communicating dissent and opposition. This is the simple formula for political conditioning of the masses. This is also the actual ideal of some of our public relation machines, who thus hope to manipulate the public into buying a special soap or voting for a special party.

    "The Pavlovian strategy in public relations has people conditioned more and more to ask themselves, "What do other people think?" As a result, a common delusion is created: people are incited to think what other people think, and thus public opinion may mushroom out into a mass prejudice."

    Now consider the oft repeated assertions of how evil Scientology is, consider Veda's (and others) ongoing refrain of how bad it all is, consider how opposing viewpoints get shunned and how it is suggested that those posters should not be on this board.

    It fits the two paragraphs quoted.

    I'm truly not posting this in order to criticise this board. Factually, brainwashing exists everywhere. All of life depends on it. We all learned language by being praised for correct imitation and told whenit is incorrect. Same with table manners, same with a myriad other conditioned habit patterns that life depends upon.

    Even your perception of the physical universe and your unshakeable certainty that it constitutes "reality" is nothiing more than a conditioned brainwash.

    This is not to condone it either.

    The daily and persistent abuses that took place in the Sea Org and the way children were treated and so on ad nauseum is all beyond the pale of what is acceptable in any human group.

    But brainwashing as such is ubiquitous and there''s no getting away from it.
  6. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Nor does it mean it isn't, Blasphemer!

    May the Marvelous & Merciful Mukluq Masticate Your Emaciated Man-Form for Mega-Eons.

    High Priest & Chief Cook to Mukluq
    Mark A. Baker
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2008
  7. thetanic

    thetanic Gold Meritorious Patron

    In secrets-based faiths and societies, consent is given as each layer of the onion is peeled -- and after that has been peeled.

    There's a great many secrets within many faiths (Catholicism being the canonical example), and one doesn't require knowing the inner vaults of the Vatican to consent to be Catholic.
  8. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    I have never written that it's ALL BAD, quite the contrary.

    And it's telling that you can't see that, or that you choose to misrepresent what I've written, or what I've linked to.
  9. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Sorry, but lying to people about something, then handing them their secret materials just before they go into session with those materials, and have the opportunity to look at them for the first time, while in session, or preparing for session, is hardly informed consent - particularly in a cult/totalist environment.

    There's no hidden booby-prize in Catholicism, such as Xenu in Scientology. It's a stretch to compare one with the other.

    Also, Scientology is not really a religion, but a crooked business that uses religious cloaking (Hubbard's "religion angle").
  10. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    Maybe he's confusing you with me :)

  11. alex

    alex Gold Meritorious Patron

    This sort of conditioning, using repetition and the "human" compulsion to agree with others, is something I believe all people take part in.

    People constantly and unawarely reinforce "information packages" or call them implants, or whatever...

    I believe it is not something we are aware we do, thus a liability.

    Ingo Swann writes well about this subject. Hubbard tried to develop an end run focused attack methodology on it, buddhists have tried for centuries to direct attention to singularity to escape it, drugs certainly work for a few moments to step out of it, but I believe education and experience of looking and seeing the mechanisms is the best route.

    But a short exercise in making the opposing terminal true may key it out.

  12. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    That's possible.

    He's going on about brainwashing, without using the quote function, so I'm not sure what inspired that.

    Could have been a link that led to information on L. Ron Hubbard's 'Brainwashing Manual':

    The issue is not so much what the word 'Brainwashing' means, the issue is that L. Ron Hubbard secretly wrote a booklet, that he called the 'Brainwashing Manual', and that he, then, systematically, over a span of thirty years, implemented on his own private fan club, the Scientologists.
  13. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    I do recall an instance somewhere where you said there had been some good things in Scientology.

    Nothwithstanding that, I think the statement "ongoing refrain of how bad it all is" is a fair comment of your posts on this board, as it is for Zinji.

    I have no problem at all with you continuing in this way. I was using you merely as an example, not in order to target or diminish you. I find many of the links you provide very useful, even though I think you do go on a bit.
  14. Neo

    Neo Silver Meritorious Patron

    As for opposing the Co$ - thats good, from my perspective. But not relevant to the conversation. I don't recall asking you about your thoughts on the Co$.

    Hubbard defined ARC, but does it work? As he described? So I can't understand something/someone unless I am in agreement (reality) with them?

    Yes, resolving issues of the past, if affecting the present would be prudent, IMO. Hubbard didn't invent this technique either. As for the need to view an 'entire chain' - not in my experience.

    But this was purely a subjective experience. Passed onto us as an objective one. Can you see the difference?

    Sure, but if I walk into a wall, it will hurt. That counts as 'proof' in my book.

    I didn't say past lives don't happen. I said ones recall of them doesn't prove it is as people say it is. There is a lot we probably don't know about our current reality. But lets be wise enough to say it as it is - we don't know, but we still search for answers.

    You oppose the Co$ (as stated earlier) but seem to be quite keen on Hubbard. Hubbard created the Co$. It is Hubbard through and through. Hubbard was degraded himself. Your other post implied that this is all conspiracy theory, desite the links to documentation I provided. Hubbard is no saint, no knight in shining armour.

    I am more interested in truth, not someones (including mine) version of it. I have stated my thoughts on responsibility already

    Your manners are not in question. Besides I don't mind a person 'raising their voice' if it fits the 'discussion'! I don't know if it is merely a belief that man is basically good. I don't have data on any scientific experiments on this. But if I didn't believe it - would I be talking with you, LOL.

    Any disagreements we may have is not necessarily on the Scn philosophy. It is predominately on your dedication to Hubbard. It is not based on fact. Thus it is not based on truth, and no I don't accept that because you say it is true, it is therefore true for you. Truth as actually documented, says what it says. The question is -can you accept that?

  15. Art

    Art Guest

    Not at all - each has his or her own reality.

    Personally, I think Freud provided the seminal work on the "traumatic incident". Apparently Korzybski made substantial contributions as well.

    [have to quote myself here for context] Art: "I've seen other guys and girls who can use their intention, politely or not. It isn't an exclusive to Scns. But I'd never felt intention as strong as this one OT's." Then Neo wrote:

    Yeah, I can see the difference :) Logical fallacy - if a person is incapable of accurate perception, then he is also incapable of perception of objective experience. All objective experience has to be perceived by someone. That does not mean it does not exist. "Second-hand information" would be accurate, wouldn't it? A reporter for a newspaper gathers subjective information, and passes it along. But in this case, you can observe other peoples' intentions for yourself, and "see it for yourself." Affinity flows, for example, are easily observable. Intention is slightly different, but that is observable also, and one can experience another's intention.

    That was MY point:).

    Now you're talking!! I don't think the truth is something "agreed" upon. Truth exists independently of our own humble selves. You can see it, and point it out to me, and if I see it, that isn't an "agreement" I don't think. I think I'd rather view it as a coincidence of perception.

    [The remainder of your post regretfully unanswered - I'm spending too much time on forums. The truth is common ground, and there's enough of it for everyone to stand on.]

  16. nexus100

    nexus100 Gold Meritorious Patron


    "Now you're talking!! I don't think the truth is something "agreed" upon. Truth exists independently of our own humble selves. You can see it, and point it out to me, and if I see it, that isn't an "agreement" I don't think. I think I'd rather view it as a coincidence of perception."

    I don't see how truth can exist without us. Truth exists only in a space where something can happen to be attested to as true. Without us, no universe. However, I'd be happy to look at a proof. "Coincidence of perception" is a happy phrase, that means, to me, exactly agreement. One must take the same viewpoint to see the same thing!

    I believe one reason Scientology was doomed to fail, as Axiom 142 noted earlier, is that there's simply too much validation of the physical stuff and too little validation of the being. Spirits succeed best with a very light touch. Succeed, that is, at being spirits. But the COS was designed to make money and robots can do that very well, as the machine age has proven.
  17. Art

    Art Guest

    Yes - it's amazing. The simplest basics get dropped out, and the whole thing falls apart. The idea was to succeed as spirits. Best, Art.
  18. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Was the promoted goal of, "succeed as spirits" used as a deceptive lead-in?; was "smash" into history and "survive!" for "10 thousand years," as a personality cult, the "real goal"?

    If so, the "smash" part, at least, seems to have succeeded.
  19. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    Just looking back over this thread, something occurred to me. 'Truth' does exist in a non-relative absolute sense outside of ourselves, *but* it's not available to us as humans (it may be glimpsed in an epiphany, but, the actual realization can't be maintained.) What we do have is our *perception* of the 'Truth', which can approach the reality, but never actually attain it, in any permanent sense anyway.

    We catch the glimpses; we attempt to align our daily consciousness to 'Truth' as closely as we can, but, it's always only approximate. Sometimes it's even wildly *misperceived* too :) Or, misinterpreted, which is one of the major problems with 'revelation'.

  20. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Which is another way of saying that all we can know is our own relative truth.

    Thus, "Truth" is ultimately both real and a matter of faith.

    Mark A. Baker