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.



OT 8 parents declared Suppressive Persons for refusing to disconnect from son

Discussion in 'Freezone, Independents, and Other Flavors of Scien' started by CommunicatorIC, Aug 4, 2013.

  1. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    But, it has a GREAT DEAL to do with "faith".

    Faith means "belief in things unseen". It means to have a certainty about that which you actually have no experience and no direct observation of. That is why people have "faith" in God - because it is based almost wholly on belief, and upon ZERO personal experience of anything tangible.

    In Scientology, the indoctrination system produces FAITH about all sorts of things. It is very much the same as with other religions, in that the follower believes in things that cannot be seen, experienced or shown to others. It is entirely subjective. But, the contents of the subjectivity follows an exact pattern defined by Hubbard's nomenclature and paradigm. The group shares the same set of ideas.

    Of course, Scientology will NEVER present itself as being based on such a high degree of faith as a way to "prove" that it is a "religion" (like other religions), because that goes against so much of Hubbard's claims that Scientology rises above such nonsense and is based on actual "research".

    For example, there are no actual OTs with any sort of abilities as defined and described by Hubbard. Nobody has ever SEEN ONE because they don't exist. Yet, many Scientologists BELIEVE that such states exist. They are quite certain of it. THAT is "faith". This involves believing in things that one has never experienced anywhere at any time.

    Continuing along, Scientologist BELIEVE that Scientology possesses a certain road to spiritual freedom. Scientology doesn't possess any such thing, but the followers have FAITH that it exists. This is the same as believing in God - there is NO evidence anywhere at all, yet the followers choose to believe.

    This is especially ironic because Hubbard tells newcomers that they don't have to believe anything at all. They only need to try Scientology and see that it works. Except that they end up coming to believe in a great many things that have no evidence.

    Scientologists believe that Ron is working hard at Target II, preparing the future Bridge for them. There is no evidence of THAT. It is a belief - held with "faith".

    Scientologists believe that DM and RTC have guaranteed the "purity" of the "tech", and that RTC has ensured the availability of the upper OT Levels. Except that there was no OT 9 and 10, and various Sea Org staff "put it together out of nothing" (if they put it together at all). Scientologists believe that Ron created and left a fully complete Bridge to Total Freedom. Except that he didn't. Yet they BELIEVE so with FAITH.

    I could go on with hundreds of examples.

    There is a tremendous amount of "faith" in Scientology. It is never presented as "faith", and followers are tricked into developing such faith. They never CALL IT "faith". They call it "certainty". But it is the same thing; belief in things without any evidence or even despite contrary evidence.

    This is just another of the great many contradictions in Scientology. Hubbard tells his followers over and over that there is no need to ever believe anything in Scientology, and that it is based entirely on "workability" and "scientific technologies". Yet, in the end, Scientology participants come to accept and believe a great many ideas. With FAITH!!!! The deluded dummies call it "certainty". :duh:
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2013
  2. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    And let's carry that one nano-step further.

    If the (business) part Scientology that CHARGES MONEY FOR SERVICES & GOODS was taxed and regulated like any other business, it wouldn't last more than a very short time.

    Taxes would be charged. Cult loses money.

    Employees would have to be paid minimum wage. Cult loses money.

    Consumer complaints would fill the courts and Scientology would lose. Cult loses money.

    Consumer protection agencies and laws would stamp out rampant fraud in Scientology's advertising and stiff fines and penalties would be imposed. Cult loses money.

    The list is pretty endless of why Scientology could not possibly operate as a business if they had to play by the rules.

    The business would be relegated to a handful of true believers operating out of their homes or apartments.

    Hey, Kate, you say you are "researching" Scientology and don't know that much about it. Here's a way to save 35 years. Just listen to Karen, in the S.O. for a third of a century, personally trained by L. Ron Hubbard to the highest level attainable, Class XII. She is laughing at any suggestion that Scientology is a Church or religion. Do you know something she doesn't know?

    [video=youtube;WauRzaO-FVU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WauRzaO-FVU[/video]
     
  3. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    You are probably correct about that and that is its own fault and not my concern at all. I don't feel the tiniest bit of sympathy for the organization itself.

    No I am learning about scientology with the aim of what I learn being useful in future research, "researching scientology" would be a vast oversimplification with false implications.

    Karen and I are obviously going to be approaching the subject from very different viewpoints. Would you tell a cancer researcher "don't bother, we have been researching this for 100 years now and still have found the cure?" Yes I just compared the church of scientology to cancer. The video you linked to is all about tactics used by the organization and does not apply to non-fundamentalist versions of scientology practiced outside of the organization.
     
  4. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    I have mentioned in the past that Scientology works very hard to arrange things so that they get to play on an UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

    For all Hubbard's endless talk about games, in the end, Scientology is setup to change the rules in their favor. They are always aiming to handicap the opponents and gain an unfair advantage in any contest. That is known as "pan-determinism".

    Look at what they did with Paulette Cooper. Scientology couldn't be content to allow a sincere and honest journalist to write various details about them. They would be hurt by that. So instead of figuring out how to win fairly, they decided (as they often do) to NOT fight fairly. They set out with exact plans and a ruthless Tone 40 intention to set up Paulette Cooper in a FABRICATED SCENARIO to make it APPEAR that she was guilty of crimes she never committed. Paulette wasn't REALLY a criminal, but Scientology set out in earnest to do everything they could, despite all truth and honesty, to make her appear to be one.

    Please notice, again, that "truth" and FACTS are irrelevant to them - what only matter are 1) appearances and 2) what people can be tricked into agreeing with.

    If Scientology could get the world to AGREE that Paulette was a mentally unstable person who sent in a bomb threat to the FBI, even though she wasn't and she didn't, then Scientology could better "win". See? They will do ANYTHING to "win". The truth is irrelevant. One needs to always keep THAT in mind when trying to understand how they can possibly be a "legitimate religion". In the same way, if they could get the world to AGREE that Scientology was a religion, when it really wasn't, then again, Scientology could better win.

    Hubbard was/is playing with the minds of people when he set it all up, and he knew what he was doing as far as definitions and labels go. Hubbard asked himself, "what do I need to do to get Scientology accepted as a religion"? And then he set out on THAT program of actions. Making it APPEAR to be a religion was one step along the way- just as it was in the plan to frame Paulette Cooper. Scientology does this sort of thing all of the time. It is so much about PR and appearances. In fact, Hubbard developed a very advanced "tech" to manipulate appearances in the minds of people. Getting Scientology accepted in the minds of people as a religion was just one of many detailed Scientology programs to manipulate appearances. If you actually believe, and even better, feel, that Scientology is a religion, then YOU have been successfully manipulated! You have bought into the appearance instead of the fact and truth of the matter.

    In the above case, Scientology wanted to rearrange the playing field so that they would "win". They do this ALL of the time. In fact, the pretense of Scientology as a religion is the same sort of thing. Using the guise of "we are a religion", they can again rearrange the playing field in their favor.

    See, often, Scientology is not about what they say it is - to help one gain in ability and knowledge to better play and win a game. What it is really about is CONTRIVING reality so that APPEARANCES get accepted which give them the advantage. This involves advanced techniques of manipulation.

    Those who have accepted and believe Scientology to be a religion have fallen for the manipulative ruse. In THIS regard, as manipulators, they are somewhat good at what they do.

    One needs to examine Hubbard's policies and Scientology's behaviors to notice and grasp just how much of what they do is aimed at UNBALANCING the playing field in their favor. Getting accepted as a religion was/is a key aspect of unbalancing the playing field in their favor.

    Please notice that just as Scientology set out to MAKE IT APPEAR that Paulette was something she was not, that the exact SAME THING was done as far as Scientology being a "religion". It is all about manipulating appearances to gain an (unfair) advantage. Scientology set out to MAKE IT APPEAR that it was a religion - something it was not (not really).

    Scientology would NEVER have amounted to much of anything at all, not without the endless contriving, fabricating and manipulating of perceptions over a great many years. This was all done with careful planning, intentional deception and ruthless carrying out of programs. Most other religions evolved a bit more naturally.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2013
  5. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    I read your sentence 3 times. Honestly, I have no idea what you are trying to say, but good luck with whatever you are doing.

    I actually work with real cancer researchers, surgeons, diagnosticians and pioneering oncologists in one of my companies. I don't "tell" them anything. We collaborate. The brightest ones learn from previous studies and clinical trials and advance from that platform of knowledge, rather than starting over and making the same costly errors of those who went before them.

    As far as your theory that the "...tactics used by the organization does not apply to non-fundamentalist versions of scientology practiced outside the church", I am left with only two possible conclusions:

    1) Your research and understanding of Scientology and Indie Scientology, to date, is frightfully poor.

    --or--

    2) You have a hidden agenda if you are promoting the absurd idea that Ron Hubbard's manipulative and/or abusive policies are not practiced by Indie/FZ Scientologists who are not in the Church Of Scientology proper.

    If you really are doing the scholarly research you speak of (for your university work), then you might want to refrain from making assertions about Scientology BEFORE completing your research. It sounds extremely odd to me (as someone that spent decades "researching" Scientology by doing virtually all of it) that you have done so little Scientology; yet you purport to know so much about it.

    Weird, dude. ​


     
  6. Lermanet_com

    Lermanet_com Gold Meritorious Patron

    Which would also be an absolutely true statement IF"researching scientology" were THE SHORE STORY* listed as one of the VITAL TARGETS** of the NEW EVAL*** to handle the net.

    Arnie Lerma
    Lermanet.com Exposing the CON since 1994
    (actually my old .dgsys.com website started in 93...)


    *SHORE STORY, also known as Suitable Guise, This means the cover story used to explain someones presence.
    "(3) Providing a believable source of an operation, thereby filling the
    vacuum, so that Scn. isn't dubbed in as source." LINK

    **VITAL TARGETS:
    When $cientology wants to handle some problem, they do an EVAL (Evaluation) of the SITUATION that has a list of things to do to attain the desired result...

    ***EVAL; Short for Evaluation, a detailed written PROGRAM to follow, that may in turn "call" (as in computer porgramming) another subroutine which is often one or many entirely separate PROJECTS. There may be many projects generated by a single PROGRAM EVAL. See example EVAL to handle the Titchbourne Trial in Portland.

    Also carefully study OPERATIONS PLANNING, this was the ONE document that my mentor, whose son Ron Watson disconnected from her in 1977, Ms Ida Camburn, who was involved in the first anti cult group in America, The CFF, Citizens Freedom Foundation, founded by Henry and Henrietta Crampton. which later became CAN, which was destroyed and its assets purchased during bankruptcy by $cientology Inc, asked me to web with her story of 40 years of activism to expose $cientology.

    http://www.lermanet.com/audio/bob-arnie2.wmv

    How's THAT for implications...
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2013
  7. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on



    :clapping::clapping::clapping:HellYeah! :clapping::clapping::clapping:


    Scientology: The part of the tech that "works" is the lying. Most of the time, it's done to trick other people.

     
  8. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    During the early and mid 1970s, inside Scientology Inc., I never encountered anyone who thought of Scientology as a religion. The only time anyone mentioned religion was as a defensive PR action when dealing with "wogs."

    During the early 1980s, outside of Scientology Inc., involved with people who were also outside the organization and doing auditing and training apart from the Scientology organization, I also never encountered anyone who, seriously, regarded Scientology as a religion, and the words "religion" and "Church," if used, which was rare, were used only for tactical defensive purposes, usually as a way of defending against the Scientology organization.

    The only people who, these days, say "religion," "my religion," "the Scientology religion," are those from the early/mid 1980s onward, who've been taught to parrot those words, for tactical defensive purposes, and for the advantages it provides for Scientology.

    One of the first things to go, if it's there at all, when a person leaves the Scientology organization - as the conditioning, usually slowly, drops away - is the idea that Scientology, inside or outside, is a religion.

    It's a silly idea.
     
  9. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Yes, it was exactly the same for me back when I got started in the mid-1970s.

    Heck, even in the 1990s I never knew ANYBODY, and I lived in Clearwater, who actually thought of what they were doing in Scientology as "religious". Yes, I did know a few who had learned to "play back the record" if they needed to put on a front for some reason (PR, handling). There is an obvious time where words like "scriptures" and "ecclesiastical" began appearing in Scientology writings (promotion). That occurred as a result of exact planning and the carrying out of well-constructed programs to "create an effect" on the environment. This was all TACKED onto what currently existed as Scientology to help it gain recognition as a bona fide religion.

    Cripes, most Scientologists don't consider themselves to be involved in any sort of religious activity. Why should anyone else? :duh:
     
  10. Anonycat

    Anonycat Crusader

    I would not agree with one, but both: it should not be exempt and it is not a religion. A letter written by Hubbard dated April 10, 1953, said:

    Another section of the same letter gave even stronger evidence that Hubbard was plotting to transform Scientology into a financially lucrative enterprise:

    Hubbard saw religion as a way to make money and protect his techniques from scrutiny by mental health and medical regulators (and likely tax agents) while trying to replace psychotherapy.

    Having had his New Jersey foundation raided in January 1951 for allegedly teaching medicine without a licence, Hubbard likely realized that "the religion angle" would insulate his fledging Scientology practices from secular regulators.

    It seemed likely that Dianetics would be a loss for him, and economic circumstances propelled Hubbard first to transform his Dianetics creation into the grander system of Scientology, then to assert that his scientific creation actually was religious in nature.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    You are making the presumption that the C of S is delivering Hubbard's "fundamental" version of Scientology, which in fact, it is not. The Golden Age of Tech and some other changes wrought by Miscavage put a stake in the heart of that. I think many of the indi's deliver old school scientology, but who knows for sure. There are those that would argue all of the "basics" books are out KSW as well.

    Mimsey
     
  12. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Hubbard said and told his followers, and the public, whatever he thought would best serve HIS purposes at that moment in time.

    He defines Scientology and a Scientologist in a great many different ways. One must remember, always remember, that Hubbard was MAKING IT UP AS HE WENT ALONG. Hubbard simply made shit up, and people believed it. For example, Hubbard defined Flag as "the Mecca of Technical Perfection". At best that is a PR slogan. It is a flowery metaphor. The truth is that at NO TIME has Flag ever been delivering whatever was considered "standard" at that time. As long as I was staff, there were ALWAYS Tech Correction Missions at Flag, and this was while also asserting that the "tech was perfect" at Flag.

    See, Hubbard just made it up. Now maybe one could see it as an "ideal", for Flag to be this "Mecca of Technical Perfection". But, it was never viewed as an ideal, to be aimed at achieving. It was always asserted that it WAS a "Mecca of Technical Perfection". Yet, it wasn't and it isn't. THAT IS A LIE. Scientology is overflowing with similar lies - assertions made by Hubbard that exist as fact ONLY in the over-exaggerated imaginations of deluded Scientologists. They agree with Hubbard's made-up nonsense, and it becomes "truth" for them.

    Scientology isn't like a tree or a car. You can give something a name, and label it, but one always has the "actual thing" to refer to. With Scientology, often there is no "actual thing" there at all. It is all smoke and mirrors. Hubbard was a very adept stage magician of IDEAS - and he cold make them appear and disappear for people (this is also called hypnotism).

    Hubbard defines and describes a great many things that are basically ILLUSORY. In other words, what he describes doesn't actually exist anywhere. One creates the idea in ones own imagination, and breathes life into Hubbard's FICTION.

    There is no state of Clear. Such a state is illusory.

    There is no full OT. Such a state is illusory.

    There is no group known as Scientology that is making a better world. That idea is illusory.

    Hubbard defines and describes a great many things that don't actually exist, yet people accept that they do - Marcabs, Fifth Invader Forces, DC8s millions of years ago, "suppressive persons", and on and on. It is all make-believe.

    Scientology being a religion is equally MAKE BELIEVE. It is an assertion, that having been repeated forcefully over many years, has come to be agreed with (despite all evidence to the contrary).
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2013
  13. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    Well observed, all

    Prior to Hubbard/COB terrorizing themselves (by committing so many crimes that they were subjecting Scientology organizations to being raided and possibly shut down) which would likely have taken their money away and stuck them, personally & appropriately, with criminal liability and prison time--the orgs were just called orgs. It was in that foxhole of imminent doom that gurus Hubbard and Miscavige both got religion and orgs miraculously became "Churches". Likewise, "Science" and "Applied Philosophy" became "Religion". Hey, it's Scientology, just repeat back whatever the survey buttons say, right?

    There was a good reason that the terms "Church" and "Religion" were not used in Scientology's first three decades. It would have completely crashed Scientology's international auditing stats. Because, had anyone seriously mentioned the word "Church" or "Religion", Scientologists would have immediately line charged so hard that nobody would have been sessionable for months and months of persistent F/Ning.

    I remember the first few times (80's) that i heard someone call it "my Religion" or "my Church" and I was sure they were joking. When those kind of Churchy-Religious utterances began to happen with frequency, I actually had an 8th Dynamic Cognition about Scientology:


    "God! This is stupid!!"
     
  14. Anonycat

    Anonycat Crusader

    Great post.

    Hubbard. Cool story, bro - Hubbard takes a swing at sounding like a spiritual guru:

     
  15. Udarnik

    Udarnik Gold Meritorious Patron

    In that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the true power structure in Scientology. OT VIIIs are not bishops. They have no decision making power unless they hold positions given to them my the COB RTC. And non-OT VIIIs can also hold those same positions at the COB's whim. OT VIIIs are just very pious laypeople. Sort of the way John Kerry can be a very prominent Catholic, but still under a possible order by a bishop to be refused communion if the Pope suddenly got pissy over his stance on abortion (although OT is a "spirtiual" position and not truly analgous to KErry's secular position, but it's the closest I could come up with offhand).
     
  16. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    Yes that is reasonable to say. I didn't really mean power wise, I meant piety wise when I wrote that but I see how that could be interpreted that way.
     
  17. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    Well, I got in 1986. I wasn't raised as a religious person, so when I started I read dianetics and thought it was science.

    When scientology was introduced to me a few months later, why I had a bit of a button on the religion aspect of it. I just couldn't understand this. But what ultimately handled my button on the religion of scientology was indeed hubbard's lectures and books which I read the complete library back in 1986-89.

    And what handled me (convinced me), was hubbard saying in the books and lectures that the psych's, governments, school system, SP's and being PTS,

    were corrupting my thinking

    and only scientology & hubbard could set me straight, or "clear" me.

    So, of course, I realized & agreed it was a business and just hiding under being a religion, so that scientology could clear the planet and introduce scientology to planet. I agreed to this. I thought I was part of some wonderful operation, I thought I was the elite of the planet because I found scientology.

    And I never did my due diligence. You know, I was hard sold to do the next step after I completed a step. There was no time to really think it thru or compare to other systems or ologies. I was sold.
     
  18. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Sweet mother of Christ!:omg:

    "Piety" has NOTHING to do with Scientology. The concept has no possible connection with anything about Scientology. One really has to jump through loops of fire, make insane leaps of logic, and exercise extreme mental gymnastics to use the word "piety" in relation to anything having to do with Scientology. One really must either 1) have a very poor association with the ideas of Scientology, or 2) be trying to make a connection where none actually exists.

    I mean, I was involved with Scientology back when I first read the word "ecclesiastical" in a Scientology publication - and I almost barfed! :puke2:

    (after stopping the intense laughter at reading such a preposterous term used in connection with Scientology).
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2013
  19. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    Piety & Scientology: LOL. LineCharge. LineBarf.

    There is a connection (just not the one Scientologists want):



    pious - adjective \ˈpī-əs\
    1. a: marked by or showing reverence for deity and devotion to divine worship (Kinda true, in respect to the fact that Scientologists regard THEMSELVES as deity and have devotion to worship THEMSELVES.) b : marked by conspicuous religiosity <a hypocrite—a thing all pious words and uncharitable deeds — Charles Reade. (Hypocrite, that works! )

    2. sacred or devotional as distinct from the profane or secular: religious <a pious opinion>

    3. showing loyal reverence for a person or thing : dutiful

    4. marked by sham or hypocrisy (Hey Hey! Now we are really getting somewhere! LOL)

     
  20. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    I can say this about that: while I accepted the premise it was a religion based on it's concept of the thetan, co - existence as theta, the theta universe, the axioms and factors, but it was more of a "modern" religion or even a space themed / whole track religion than traditional, in the sense of prayer, worship etc. god fearing religion. To me it was about spirituality and was more pragmatic - or so I believed.

    Like Gadfly, I would cringe when they would hold sunday services, or blather off and on about praying - knowing full well that was a load of PR BS for the wogs and outsiders they were trying to impress.

    I didn't mind Hub's music tapes, "Make it go right, that is the way.." etc. but at events or graduations, when some "artists" would start singing shit like "oh Ron, Savior of mankind" and " Let's clear the planet for the old man" all that sticky slimy pseudo religious music, oh my god - I was embarrassed to be in the room, I felt it was reaching a new low level of crassness, found only at the bottom of the Marina Trench.

    Sorry, if I reminded you of something that makes listening to fingernails scratching on black boards seem sublime.

    I dunno. That whole OSA fueled waving the religious flag was so false. Why couldn't we be left alone to believe what we wanted without all this crap? It never made sense to me.

    Mimsey