General comments and questions goes… here!
If you want to share general comments or ask me questions not specifically related to any blog posts, please put them here. Keep in mind the following rules:
- Be polite
- No argumentum ad hominem
- No reference to confidential materials
I hope this will help make comments to other blog posts more relevant. And if this post gets many comments, I may create a separate page for general comments and questions.
Leave a reply to isene Cancel reply
Quick links:
Navigation/index page
General questions and comments
Your gains from Scientology
Purpose: To help differentiate between the Scientology philosophy and the Church of Scientology.
Feel free to contribute by adding your comments to the blog posts. When you do, please observe the rules of this blog.
Note: I will not post or link to confidential material on this blog. Scientologists should feel safe coming here to get truth.
Spread the word: Feel free to translate my Doubt write-up and spread it far and wide. Use OpenOffice to open the file. Please keep the formatting so that it remains a valid WOIM list. It is already translated into German
Geir Isene: Straight talk on Scientology 
Oh and for just barely noticing this section I apologize.
Oh and also,random query but do you have any data regarding stats in South Africa,Taiwan,Columbia,Field(churchie) in Australia,and CC Int?Last I heard those areas were what was keeping the whole implant station afloat.”
“Oh and what about Russia?
Wasn’t Ron Org for all intensive purposes routing the Churchie Missions there?
Thanks!!!”
(edited to remove redundant questions answered in another thread)
I do not believe Africa is doing much floating for the church. Russia is not a gold mine – they expanded well in the 90’s but has since tapered out. Taiwan may be doing gold from what I hear (hearsay). Australia had a major setback last 18 months with lots of OTs leaving the church. As for CCint, I haven’t been there in a few years, I have little data.
I am interested in your interpretation of OT3. Would you be willing to talk in private per email about it?
I am not going to discuss confidential information.
Why not? It isn’t confidential anymore, because it’s all over the internet anyway.
It’s a matter of personal choice. I gave my word to not discuss it. My word means a lot to me and to those who trusts me (like my family and friends on various matters).
While I completely understand your not wanting to disclose confidential materials, in your opinion do you believe that the materials covered in Scientology need to be confidential?
Would you think it is possible for people to gain “wins” from Scientology with there being a cost associated, or at the very least such a steep cost?
As a far as I can understand from available materials, as becoming clear is mentioned in freely available material, can you answer this question: Do you believe that the planet needs to be cleared?
Thank you.
Regarding the need for confidentiality of materials; The jury is still out on that one.
Wins is possible regardless of cost. But more wins will be gained in any population proportional with lower cost.
I would want all the people that wants to become clear to have an easy opportunity to become so. I don’t want to see pushing or hard sell. If this would “clear the planet”, I wouldn’t know – and I wouldn’t care.
You said you would like all non-confidential Scientology material to be released on the internet for free access.
Why don’t you want the currently confidential material to be released as well?
I can’t see why the confidential material like the OT levels even still needs to be confidential.
The only possible explanation i can think of is that people might laugh about it and then lose interest in Scientology alltogether, which you maybe want to prevent by keeping it confidential.
As answered before; The jury is still out on my sentiments on releasing confidential material.
Cool! Thanks for your answer.
Do you belive that the e-meter is a high-tech device? Have you ever considred open it and look for your self?
Is the meter important for use on in the tech or is it possible to autit without it or with other tools ( a lie detector for an example) ?
Did you know that the E-meter was actually invented by a chiropractor named Volney Mathison, and was originally called the Mathison Model B Electropsychometer.
Why is it updated mark IV, mark V and so on, does it mean that ppl that leveld up with early models havn´t done it corectly?
The did you do both the new and old OT levels? do you think the new one ore the old ones are the correct?
You told me that you didn´t think there was coruption before miscavige. Heard of Op snowwhite?. What do youy think of that?
The e-meter, not a high-tech device by my standards (the HP-41 with a NoV-64 and the ICEBOX is a high-tech device) is important for certain types of auditing. Lot’s of auditing is done without the e-meter. I wouldn’t trust another type of device to do the same job. I know it’s history.
The updates are refinements. That my software is updated doesn’t mean I got it wrong in the first place. There are several other possibilities.
I did the new OT levels, can’t comment on the old ones.
I did not tell you that I thought the church was without corruption before DM. Read your question and my answer again (on the post “A Message to Anonymous). I said the opposite. As for Operation Snowwhite (or Freakout); Very wrong by the church.
Note for future questions: I did 1000 hours active research over two years in addition to knowledge gained through the previous 22 years in Scientology, some of the years as an Internet researcher for OSA at times. Ask questions appropriately.
Scn rottening from inside
I was active in in Scientology 1974-81. However I watched the following happen: Already at this early time, several of the High ranking Officers was being declared SP one after the other (SP: Suppressive Person, being banned from seing other Scientologists and thrown out from the Scientology community). After the old leader is gone, a new leader comes and tells the Staff “now everything is fine, now that we got rid of that ugly SP.
We are now going to “clear the planet” the correct way. However, after some time this new guy too is being declared as being a “Suppressive Person” and is being banned charaterised as a liar. Querstion: How in the world can Scientology staff ever trust the next leader when all the previous ones have already been declared SP:s and liars?!
This is what I think is weakening the trust within Scientology staff worldwide enormously. Of course staff will think: Is this new boss soon going to be delared a Suppressive Person too? How can they ever trust anybody?
I would trust a system where the leaders could be elected and removed by a fully transparent process.
Here are a few questions:
1. Is it legal to get auditing outside of the Church of Scientology?
2. What ever happened to David Mayo? I read that he was falsely declared an SP.
3.Is there any way to force financial transparency on the Church of Scientology?
4.Does the COS report their financial data to any agency?
5. Why would the COS lie about their position on forced disconnection? I say the video of Tommy Davis that you posted and it is obvious he is lying. Why would the Church take such a position when they know that it is not true?
6 Thanks for what you are doing! Shedding the light of truth on illogic and false data.
1. Yes
2. The story about Mayo is on the net. I don’t know if he is still alive (he was about 4 years ago I believe).
3. Yes – with a full reform.
4. I suppose they report some (not all) to the IRS.
5. The CoS tries to protect their facade at every opportunity. Lying is one way they use. Disconnection is by far the only lie – size and expansion of the church, library campaign being 100%, number of volunteer ministers, the admin tech being the only on workable…
6. You are welcome 🙂
Hi Geir
In the first place, I want to congratulate you on your impressive and courageous decision to leave the Church. I also commend you on remaining loyal to what you know to be the benefits of LRH’s technology – my position exactly, my friend. As you are clearly an extremely upstat and causative person across the dynamics, your recent action is a milestone in the future of the Church of Scientology, along with the defections of both Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder. In my opinion, between you, you have opened the door to a handling of the situation.
Sorry. I Re-read the old answers now. I suck at “egnlish” 😛 Thank you you.
Hi Geir,
Welcome to the other side of the mirror 🙂
I noticed that some of your posters expressed an interest in the Confidential Levels.
The fact is that much of this material is already covered in the earliest books and lectures. If one were actually interested in what they are all about I suggest they read History of Man, Scientology 8-80 and 88008 and many of the lectures given during that period such as The Philadelphia Doctorate Course and their supplemental lectures given in England the following year. Also what are known as the Phoenix Lectures, those relating to Technique 88 and others from that period.
Also there is a difference between just reading the materials and actually running them. I mean we could talk about engrams till the cows come home and nothing is going to happen until you actually run one.
The reason these levels are confidential is because they can be misused and abused by unscrupulous individuals.
“The reason these levels are confidential is because they can be misused and abused by unscrupulous individuals.”
How could they be misused and abused?
Hi Anonymous,
Have you heard of the concept of Black or Reverse Dianetics and Scientology?
Allow me to link you to a site that talks about this in greater detail.
http://www.scientology-cult.com/reverse-scientology.html
If you have any further questions I’ll be happy to answer them.
Best
R
I still don’t see the danger of officially releasing the confidential OT materials to the public.
What is described in the linked article is merely general unethical behaviour and there wasn’t even made any “reverse” use of any confidential material.
The OT material is already easily obtainable via the internet anyway.
So if any unscrupelous person wanted to somehow use it to harm anyone, he could already do it. Yet nothing of this sort has ever happened, which suggests that the potential to harm people with this information might not be so serious as you might think.
Anonymous,
As RJ has pointed out, it is a vast distance between reading about what you think are the ‘confidential’ materials and actually being set up as a case and really running them. You won’t appreciate that until you do it. No amount of discussion will change that. Sorry, that’s the reality. Not what you may have wanted to hear, nonetheless, a fact.
Yes, but that still doesn’t explain the confidentiality of the OT materials.
You could equally well take a book on psychology and “reverse” the described methods. Nevertheless those books are not confidential or censored.
You could take the bible and “reverse” the 10 commandments. That would certainly create a much worse effect than reversing anything in the OT material.
Is that a reason to keep the bible confidential?
Information should be free, no matter what the content is.
You don’t need to “protect” anyone from information.
What about protecting a rape victim from a movie depicting rape?
Yeah and the story of Ken Ogger is a testament as to why some of the tech deserves to be confidential.
There are confidential levels and materials in other religions as well.
On the other hand what is the proof for you that you can access really to the confidential materials on the internet and not to some alterations? There is absolutely no proof, ’cause those who you could trust to validate these or disvalidate these will not validate or disvalidate these materials.
COS sends out alot of internal PR about ot 9 going to be released a soon as a specefic nr of orgs is saint hill sise etc. My qestion to you?
1.Wath does zise of orgs have anything to do with a religious/filsofic scriptures?
2. Do you belive there even is a OT9 made?
3. Do you belive OT9 is made by LRH or by some one else?
4. Will you study 0t9 when/if it i released? Do you think it is fake or don´t exist)?
5. Why do you think it is not being released yet?
1. I believe the rationale is that enough people doing OT9/10 will generate an increased influx of people – and bigger orgs are needed to cater for the inflow. It could also be that one would want the OT8’s to contribute to expansion before they release the next level.
2. Yes. I have a pretty good idea of what OT 9/10 would be.
3. LRH
4. I will study it if I can get my hands on it. I think it would be real.
5. I have my theories – but I will pass on answering this one.
Hi, is there more you can tell about the Ideal Org plans for Oslo, such as the planned location? (That is unless you have signed confidentiality agreements etc.)
Is the rationale behind it something like “let’s make a large empty building, the vacuum will suck people in”? I suspect that the ideal orgs are mainly a new way to get money from publics and skim money from the property deal. If the CoS needs more space in Oslo it would make more sense to have the Div 6 area in a small shop in Karl Johan, and move all the other stuff, like sauna, advanced course rooms etc, out to an area where property is cheaper, but still within easy access by public transport. That way publics would get more for their money.
Granted, their current location isn’t ideal either, even on Karl Johan, because being up the stairs behind a locked door is not as inviting as if they were on the ground level.
Wow, this was an informed comment. No NDA bonding me on this one 😉
The current plan is to weigh two options; To buy an Ideal Org building down town – estimated to NOK 80-100 million. Another option is just like you propose – to buy the space for Div6 first and then the rest of the Org outside the city center to make it “affordable” for the donors.
The org is currently paying some 1.2 million per year in rents and electricity – and that is pretty much all their income. They cannot fill the current 800 square meters with public (by far). It’s bordering on insanity to shake the 50 scientologists for 30 million (if we go for the “affordable” solution) to buy some 3500-5000 square meters of org space. Let alone that it is completely off policy.
Do you consider it possible that hubbard started out with noble intentions but was corrupted by the power?
That is possible. It is also possible that Hubbard started out with good intention and wasn’t corrupted by power.
I personally think that there might have been a chance that Hubbard was a little bit corrupted by the power. There are some indications of that such as the David Mayo testimony. Hubbard discovered all of these great things and with the Disconnection policy (I think the disconnection might actually be useful in extreme cases), RPF and so on he sort of took a slight turn towards more power.
He should have protected Freedom of speech more I believe and even cancel the Fair Game regarding SPs, but he probably knew about the theorem “You can’t argue with an idiot because he brings you down to his level and beat you with experience”. Hubbard probably thought that forcing them away was a better idea. I think not. I think trying to communicate is the best start, then if it’s a complete idiot, just TOTALLY IGNORE them. That’s the most annoying thing in the world.
So what if Hubbard became a little bit power hungry, if he did? It just shows he’s a thetan. “You can be the sunset or the storm you know?”, as Hubbard himself stated.
I agree.
Another quick question: if confidential materials are withheld from the public, who gets to be the custodian of the knowledge? Doesn’t that concentrated power hold inherent dangers?
I see this as a challenge.
Hello Mr Isene,
What is your perspective on the concept of VIA and VIAS as used by Hubbard and scientologists? I understand per the dry glossary definition – its a relay point – but it seems to have a huge range of applicability – and generally has some content of dissembling or stalling. Is it any gesture at all? Also it seems a pretty critical term – called the curse of life, iirc, in COHA. I’m still unclear on how so many via’s put a “stop” to a comm line in the scn worldview. It seems under-theorized for such an important term in the glossaries. And especially how are they the curse of life?
Thankyou for considering this question.
HR “*”
Now this is an interesting comment.
The term “via” is as you say a relay point. The more vias, the less straight is the communication. You can make the parallel to “red tape” and bureaucracy – lot’s of relay points before the job gets done. It’s the curse of administration. If you have lots of vias in your life, you become less of a straight shooter (i.e. you need to talk to your wife, mother, father and your dog before you can decide on something simple) – then it becomes the curse of life.
So I’ve read many websites, I started researching librairies around me, I have my own observations I’ve done for years. But I feel I need a bit more. I have a few questions:
1. Have you been able to access the stats of the Ideal Orgs that have open a few years ago? I’m particularly interested in NNCF & BIS. The ones that have open this year don’t count since I know for a fact that staff from other Orgs & Missions are being sent to
these new Orgs to train. Although that’s not a bad idea all together but it artificially boosts those 2 stats and doesn’t show true expansion.
2. Do you have a way to see the weekly or monthly Birthday Game standings?
3. You say on your blog “The real two year research with 1,5 hours of Internet reading and forum lurking as daily average didn’t start until the summer next year. It got priority when the Director of Special Affairs of Oslo Org asked if I could check something for
him on the Internet. He told me that some journalist was about to write some fiction about David Miscavige beating his staff. It turned out it was not so fictitious after all. I checked and cross checked, fact checked and analyzed.” We you able to check on this
other than just reading accounts of defectors on line? If so how?
I would appreciate any help you can give me on this. VWD on all your media interviews. I hope to hear the translation of your radio interview don’t have time to learn your language just yet :-). Have a wonderful day and continue toflourish & prosper! D
1. ESMB has threads with stats on the Ideal Orgs.
2. I used to. But birthday game stats does not measure expansion well. You could get good points while contracting. Easy to show.
3. Reading accounts, multiple viewpoints, reading court records. All these online. Then going abroad and meeting with 4 former int base staff with 50 questions on my list to verify. Also, reading 30 years of Auditor magazine, several years of Scientology News, seeing media coverage and Tommy Davis’ response to many of them – actually watching him lie on behalf of the church. Reading the firendsoflrh.org web page (may it get back up again) and many other sources of info.
Hi Geir,
I’m curious about spiritual wins/abilities you’ve gained with Scientology. Specifically:
1. Do you ever exteriorize from your body with full perceptions?
2. Can you perceive beings (without bodies) and if so, can you communicate with them?
3. Have you ever tried verifying any of your past life memories?
4. If yes to any of the above, do you think any of 1-3 could be scientifically validated?
I know that some Scientology OTs in the 70s were involved in trying to do this (SRI – Stanford Research Institute), but I’m curious why OTs don’t do this type of research or study today.
Thanks.
1. Yes, but only on occasion.
2. Mostly yes and yes.
3. Yes, successfully.
4. Yes.
On the last questions; Maybe because the old OT levels are no longer delivered?
“Maybe because the old OT levels are no longer delivered?”
Not sure I follow this. Are you suggesting that the old OT levels were better, or that church management then allowed it (but doesn’t today), or both … or something else…?
Maybe they gave other abilities.
Hi Geir!
As you probably know several people close to LRH (including his son LRH jr, aka Ronald DeWolf, and one of his ex-wives, can’t recall which) vindicate stories that LRH used psych drugs, as well as illegal narcotics (especially hallucinogens), throughout his time as the leader of Scientology. His son LRH jr. also said that Hubbard was friends with Aleister Crowley, the famous hallucinogen-endorsing British occultist. In fact, it is quite easy to find quotes by Crowley about his relationship with Hubbard.
In addition to this, the official San Luis Obispo County Coroner’s report on Hubbard’s body found traces of the drug Vistaril (hydroxyzine), a psych drug used to relieve anxiety (full coroner’s report here: http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/l-ron-hubbard-coroners-report-complete.pdf )
My question is, what do you make of all the evidence that Hubbard was involved with drug use and the occult? Have you seen the videos of LRH jr. stating these aforementioned assertions? What about the fact that he left behind a $600 million estate when he died? In my opinion Hubbard, like Miscavige, was a sociopath. It is known that sociopaths, whose brains have significant physical differences from normal individuals (they can pass lie detector tests with ease), are extremely charismatic and effective at getting people to behave in whatever way they choose (such as viewing them as a living God much as Charles Manson was able to do to his followers). Thanks, sorry it’s such a long question!
-E
Nibs also verified that OT and Clear abilities/powers existed and that he and his father witnessed people who had them.
The drug use is irrelevant in perspective if the intentions are noble.
We could very easily say that Freud was a crackhead but does that discount his discoveries either?
Oh and your comment about sociopaths brains is pure psuedoscience.
Okay, the stuff they were saying is NOT pseudo-science. Found a good video on youtube that shows the functional differences in the way that sociopathic (or psychopathic) individuals process information with emotional content, as compared to non-sociopathic individuals.
If you’re interested I can try and dig up some additional info for you as well, because I KNOW it’s out there (just been a few years so I can’t rattle off studies from the top of my head)
There should be some more recent stuff out there based on fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) which has totally opened up doors in neuroscience/neuropsychology, etc. and has the whole advantage of being non-invasive, but also can provide functional imaging of sub-cortical area (like not just on the surface of the brain).
’tis exciting times for those interested in the brain sciences. Check it out. It’s way cool. 🙂
Oh snap,that is some good stuff.
More info is requested.
Just to CLARIFY though,when e-jains made his claim,I assumed it was something along the lines of 19nth Century Pre-Freudian “bumps on the brain cause this person to be a rapist” thinking,which IS psuedo-science.
Oh hey. Sorry ’bout the lag. Got rather distracted by parliament then all the happenings on WWP…but I’m back, with linkage! 🙂
Anyhow, yes! Phrenology! Should note that at the time it wasn’t so much about “bumps on the brain cause this person to be a rapist”, but was more an early (and obviously incorrect) theory about personality and other traits being related to different parts of the brain. So, like, if you had a “bump” in a certain place it correlated to having more of a certain trait, etc. Even Queen Victoria had her kids’ heads “read” this way!
One thing we can thank Phrenology for, is the notion that different regions of the brain relate to different things…just not in the way the Phrenologists thought. 😉
But quirks of history aside, I’ve done a bit of web-trawling for some free-access material that is *reasonably* digestible.
EDITORIAL: Neurobiological basis of psychopathy – This is a good summary of a bunch of research, which has implicated dysfunction of the amygdala (involved in memory & emotion) and the Orbitofrontal cortex (frontal cortex being involved in higher cognitive processes – and the OFC is a sub-region of that involved with decision making & is heaps functionally connected with the amygdala) in psychopathology.
Also got some full articles:
Deficient Fear Conditioning in Psychopathy – there is some technical language being used, especially in relation to data/stats (not sure what your background is on that, so sorry if it’s not so readible).
Temporal lobe abnormalities in semantic processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging – which picks up on the same kinda thing being looked at in that youtube video, only more recent (and yeah, using fMRI data).
Altered connections on the road to psychopathy – Really recent stuff which is examining whether abnormal connections between the OFC and amygdala, such as the uncinate fasciculus (UF) could be implicated as a neurobiological correlate of psychopathology.
Anyhow, hope this is helpful – and sorry ’bout my slackness in replying. 🙂
It seems to me that the COS has the policy of the end justifies the means. Since they are “the greatest good” anyone who is against them is “bad”. This coupled with incredible fund raising to battle all legal matters and having a good product to keep people on line “seems” to be a winning formula from their viewpoint. I don’t see this stopping until their funding is stopped or slowed significantly to get their attention. I understand why they are so careful with their mailing lists and contact info now, because that would be the way to cut off their supply lines with the truth. The biggest donors should be contacted and have then look at some of the abuses and see if they think that it is justifiable. If DM really is the leader of the COS then I see no reason that his Scientologists shouldn’t have the data on the abuses and “think for themselves”.
We need to help dry out the money flow.
Your point on the “end justifies the means” is correct. The church is excellent at generating black/white and us/them viewpoints.
Do you know Tarja Vulto?
I do.
Geir,
Feel free to answer my questions unless you feel your answers might somehow contain confidential information.
1. What do you think (or know) happens when a person dies? Why do not people remember their past lives?
2. Did you have any OT-abilities before you were a Scientologist? (Like exteriorixation, communicating with beings etc)
3. When you exteriorize, how far from your body can you go?
1. You leave the body. Float around. Most people would be in the worst shock possible having lost their family, friends, all earthly goods, their name, their cat and dog, their whole identity. After a while they simmer down and gets anxious to rejoin the game of life. Anxiety takes hold and an urge for a new body ensues. The being finds a pregnant woman and takes the body after a while. It takes a long time to get accustomed to the new body.
2. Some telepathy, one provable and distinct precognition.
3. With full perception, I have only been a few meters away from the body.
Hi Geir,
I thought I’d cross post this Knowledge Report to your blog, because I feel it’s important.
I think any lurkers here should read it.
The message is clear: Stop feeding the beast!
http://www.scientology-cult.com/sabotage-infiltration-espionage.html
Or “Do not feed the trolls”.
You mean the trolls from the magical kingdom in Langley? 🙂
Dear RJ,
You are the man!! I wish we had execs in Scientology that think like you!!!!
Have other Scientologists ever thought that the tactics to get donations are right out of the Chapter in Science of Survival called Subjects Method of Handling Others. These tactics are below 2.0 on the tone scale and they are abberated.
That was an excellent report and if RTC cannot duplicate that then they have some major blocks in their universe!
Cut the money flow to the Church!! Let’s “ding that in” as they like to say.
Thanx Alex but I can not credit for that report. It was written by T Paine over at Scientology-cult.com (don’t let the name throw you off. It’s basically about how David Miscavige has taken the Church of Scientology and turned it into a cult.) though I’ve written similar KRs when I was on lines which is the reason I’m not on lines right now 🙂
However even though I did not write this report I totally agree with the concept that we just stop funding this greedy monster. That is boycott every squirrel activity this self proclaimed dictator promotes.
I think if we shut down the flow of cash this madness he has visited on orgs will eventually stop sooner rather than later.
So as you say “Let’s ‘ding that in” 🙂
Thanks RJ. My mis-duplication. But thanks for posting it, it was an incrdible report! Now this is a form of ethics handling that I can sink my teeth into.
I’m not that far on the bridge, but I’ve actually had a few precognition occassions, they’re kind of strange. I’ve felt a special kind of “happy feeling” or moments of euphoria and later on something negative happened. This has especially been the case when un upcoming conflict with a person was about to happen, like I on a subconscious level “knew” the other persons direction would conflict with my direction and intention, and later on our counter-intentions would result in a bad experience.
It’s like some part of me “knew” (without me knowing) that I was going to get into trouble later (I was slapped once and threatened the other time), and to “compensate” for the negative feelings these euphoric feelings would somehow compensate, but BEFORE the negative incident was about to happen. (Just my interpretation of it). One of these euphoric experiences started weeks before my first meeting/communication with the person.
Do you have any explanation for those strange phenomenon?
My current take on precognition is that the being is able to draw an vast amount of data to arrive at a very accurate prediction. To be able to do so, the amount of data must be enormous.
Or it could be as simple as two different postulates from two differente persons are about to cross each other, without knowing exactly where and how it would happen.
Moar tech research needs to be done no?
Have you ever considered signing a Billion Year Contract? 🙂
Hey Geir.
Following up on a comment I gave to an anon on here,You haven’t happen to have heard the story of Ken Ogger,have you Geir?
It would be interesting to say the least your view on the SDH implanting/black dianetics use and fair gaming on him.
Oh and the obvious murder too.
Chris, Marty Rathbun is pretty adament that nothing even close to this took place in OSA or the Church. It would appear that hiring PIs and sending in the lawyers were the extent of the legal tactics used in OSA.
I don’t really care what Marty says about OSA,what I want to know is what Rinder says.He was the head of OSA after all.
I have read of Ken Ogger. I need to do more research on him before I voice my opinions.
(link removed due to reference to confidential material)
Frankly based on my own eval some of his self clearing stuff is kinda squirelly but his story with regards to his implanting via black dianetics is scary to say the least.
That and the fact that he was so “dangerous” that OSA had to kill him is even more heartbreaking.
(another link removed due to reference to confidential material)
Chris; Keep within the rules – no referencing to confidential materials.
Sorry Geir,just trying to inform.Hopefully you looked at the links before you took them down.
Just wish there was a way to give the links to you without the general readers getting to it.
Sure, try g_@_is_ene.com (remove the underscores)
Geir, Ken Ogger was “The Pilot”. I think I remember you mentioning his proposed list of Church Reforms in one of your posts. Anyway, he was anonymously “The Pilot” until the church finally figured out who it was and then declared him. At which time, he announced his name online.
He also wrote a bunch of new processes and upper level stuff, though he had apparently never formally attested to Clear or any of the OT levels … but he had apparently done the OT levels and other auditing on himself. Anyway, long story short, he became convinced that OSA was secretly using their psychic abilities to try to make him commit suicide, and said so on his website. He was found, a few days later, sunk to the bottom of his pool with his feet tied to a concrete block. The police investigated and concluded it was a suicide. The online rumors were that he was killed by OSA, and it was made to look like a suicide.
“Anyway, long story short, he became convinced that OSA was secretly using their psychic abilities to try to make him commit suicide, and said so on his website”
No he said he was implanted by OSA SDH style.
What with the man being raped and having spent some months in a coma afterward I’ll believe Ogger.
Also how do you explain Ken’s new “self clearing” book being “mysteriously” erased from his computer the day of the “suicide”?
Sloppy “suicide” and erased independent tech smells of a stupid OSA Op to me.
Chris, Two of the top guys in the church (and OSA) are now out — Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder. And while they are ashamed of the heavyhanded PIs and lawyers being used against certain critics (at DM’s insistence apparently), they aren’t claiming that extreme measures like PDH’ing and killing people were employed by OSA.
I’m not saying that Rinder ACTUALLY ORDERED this stuff to happen,I’m just leaving out the possibility that some black dianeticist David Miscavige “true believer” OSA operative thought this stuff would be a good idea.
Also remember the context of the time track here.
The date the alleged implanting took place occured around the same time OSA was stopping free speech on ARS,hencee OSA was still relativistically, “active”.Add the inherent hidden nature of said SDH’ing,OSA would have absoluteley nothing to lose by “accomplishing”this.
Also I seriously doubt Ken Ogger would really allow himself to get randomly raped and out into a 3 month coma….
Geir,
I do not understand why you choose not to respond to my question regarding what LRH jr. said about the actions of LRH, or about his relationship with Aleister Crowley. This is not about the confidential church materials. It is not about whether or not Clears really have perfect memory, etc. It is about the founder of your religion. Why did both of LRH’s ex-wives recount physical abuse at the domineering hands of Hubbard? Why did Hubbard order severe actions be taken against Paulette Cooper?
Sara Northrup Hubbard: “Hubbard
violently strangled me and sadistically ruptured the
eustachian tube of my left ear, resulting in the impairment of
my hearing. Such strangulation was a frequent
practice on the part of Hubbard.” Official affidavit.
L. Ron Hubbard Jr: “He meant to start a religion for self-aggrandizement, for money, for power; and he got that in great doses – both of them.” “What a lot of people don’t realize is that Scientology is black magic …spread out over a long time period. To perform black magic generally takes a few hours or, at most, a few weeks, but in Scientology it’s stretched out over a lifetime and so you don’t see it. Black magic is the inner core of Scientology – and is probably the only part of Scientology that really works.'”
I have little interest in LRH the man (although that could change in the future as most anything). I am interested in the results of the tech.
So your saying we should believe every word an Ex Wife and an estranged son says about the man….right.
Obviously you haven’t studied the actual subject of Scientology or the subject of Magick if you think they are in any way similar.
Why don’t you pick up a book instead of just surfing the web?
No, I wasn’t saying the quotes are valid. It just seems strange that both ex-wives would say the same thing. In addition, I have seen Hubbard on video lie, saying that he only ever had two wives, when it is quite factual that he had three: Margaret Grubb, Sara Northrup, and of course Mary Sue Whipp, who was later imprisoned for her involvement in infiltrating the tax records (Hubbard evaded arrest and went into hiding). (Google “Operation Snow White”).
To see him definitively lie, search “l ron hubbard” on youtube and click the first video.
~Those who claim to know hidden truths never, ever, really do: Charles Manson, L Ron Hubbard, Jung Myung-seok, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, Luc Jouret, David Koresh, Dave McKay
I personally don’t remember him saying how many wives he had (not that it matters much), however any comment by someone can be twisted to make someone appear to be lying.
On the other note Hubbard never claimed to “know hidden truths”.
My suggestion still applies.
It was in a filmed interview with him onboard the Apollo by a news crew. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xvtcFldTlo see 1:15 If you watch the video I doubt you will have any question about the matter.
E,
You’ve not done your homework. Half the ‘data’ isn’t enough. Have you actually read any of Aleister Crowley’s work for instance? I’ve heard all sorts of stories. That isn’t fact.
Yeah Thelema is very much a wide spectrum of things and at the same time an extremely closed thing.
Kinda like scientology 🙂
E-jains,
First of all it’s sometimes hard to know exactly what is true and not true about Hubbard since there are so many perhaps false testimonies about him out on the net, but yes, there are some indications that Hubbard wasn’t a perfect man.
I’ve made an observation that people who are leaders or who are trying to create something most of the time has more flaws that those who just observe and follow.
There are numerous examples of this: Lennon for example (according to McCartney’s biography) was cheating a lot with girls when married, he was a heroin addict, he had numerous very unpleasant verbal fights with McCartney etc. Paul also stated in his biography that he (Paul) was happy to be “number two” in Beatles. He compared being number one with riding a horse in the woods. The first horse had to tear all the bushes down etc, but the second horse could more or less just follow path and not be so worn out. It was easier to be number two.
There are numerous examples of leaders/important creators who are slightly “crazy”, Berlusconi (not a man I like by the way), Lennon, van Gogh, Michael Jackson, even Miscavige etc.
It seems that if you want to lead or create and be “number one”, it’s not unusual that some gradient level of crazyness will follow. But those that follow can sort of “relax” and just steer their way through, “riding” on the leader.’
Therefore, I think some level of “crazyness” should be accepted in a leader/creator due to this.
Just my two Swedish cronas.
Genius and madness go together more often than not.
There are many, many books that document this,. A couple I recommend are “Strange Brains and Genius” by Clifford Pickover and “Genius and Heroin” by Michael Largo.
To quote an unknown, “Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light”.
I always felt LRH was the conduit for the tech. I think truth found a path through him. Kind of like a receiver receives the station but is not the real source of the program. I think he (the man) came to believe he was the real source. And unfortunately, the receiver had some gremlins. He was a good man and a bad man and many in-betweens.
Thank you for your reply. Indeed many such people who start a movement fit the personality profile of sociopaths: extremely charming, manipulative, creative flare, but in the end and well hidden behind the scenes…conning, extremely greedy, violent, addicted to being worshipped.
One can see this in the likes of Charles Manson, Jim Jones, an unending list of others…and, in my opinion, Hubbard. The most common giveaway is when these people have followers who believe that there is something special…exceptional…supernatural about these men. Manson claimed he was destined to initiate a race war in which the blacks would kill the whites, and then he would descend from the mountains to rule over the foolish blacks. He told his followers he was the son of God incarnate, and they swore by it. Others, more intelligent in my opinion, have a tendency to make their followers feel as if they can achieve the same supernormal status that they possess. Thus, Hubbard claimed that Clears have perfect memories. In fact, there is not a single OT that has a perfect memory. There are many things people can _convince themselves_ of, regarding to supernatural powers, telepathy etc., but it follows from testimony of OTs that they eventually realize they have been taking place in a _shared false belief system_ in which they have deceived none other than themselves. This is the genius of Hubbard’s seduction. As Jason Beghe, an OT 5, said when he left the Church: “OT? OT? There’s no such thing as OT. How about Clear? Show me a Clear for Christ’s sake. I want to see a m****f**** Clear. Doesn’t get sick? Perfect memory?”
I have identified a single common factor among such sociopathic leaders and their followers: the group ALWAYS moves into a more militant phase as it progresses. This inherently reflects the sociopathic personality of the leader: the way a sociopath responds to criticism or threat is by _violence_ and intimidation. Thus: Jim Jones ordered the mass suicide of all his followers when some began threatening to leave the group; Charles Manson’s last free move as the leader of his group was to convince his female followers to murder actress Sharon Tate and eleven others; L. Ron Hubbard devised the SP declare system, the Fair Game policy, the Disconnection policy, the abusive RPF, the creation of Auditing Process R2-45, Operation Snow White (for which Mary Sue went to federal prison) and Operation Freakout, the aggressive actions taken against Paulette Cooper, a reporter, which she claims was an attempt to get her to commit suicide – something she came very close to doing. Do you see the pattern?
Remember: a defining characteristic of sociopaths is their charm, their ability to make people think “Good ol’ Ron! A true man who wants to help people, to give us power and make us able! The holder of the ancient history of the cosmos! The infallibility of the Tech!”
Hubbard’s exact words: “SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist with any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” And people are surprised by Miscavige’s actions…
When I was younger I was abused by a group known as the WingMakers, who claimed that an alien race came down to the Earth thousands of years ago and installed various poems and paintings into invisible caverns in New Mexico. The followers of this group were instructed to purchase these poems and paintings (and other materials, including techno music) and study them endlessly so that when the evil alien race the Animus would come to the Earth to try to destroy it, it would be hidden from them by a Grand Portal which was to appear in the late 21st century. If we didn’t buy these things – we would be responsible for the destruction of the planet at the hands of the Animus.
Oh, and as a side effect, by studying these materials (about $450 per painting at the time) we would increase our IQ because the benign WingMakers installed secret powers in the materials that would greatly increase the intelligence of those who study them. A surprising amount of people bought into it (and continue to buy into it).
Next really long post will be clipped.
Scientology ≠ WingMakers. Differentiation is the key to logic.
I did not claim they are the same. Just giving another example of a similar, though smaller, organization.
Wow you’re one of the few people I know who actually take R2-45 seriously!
Regarding Fair Game the policy actually says :“SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist with(out) any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”
Also you missed the part about HCO a person who was declared “fair game” at that time had no recourse to HCO.
Why would HCO act on behalf of someone they declared suppressive?
Fair Game meant what it meant under common law that the person was outside the protection of the law in Scientology this was HCO. They still had the protection of the State. Do you actually think that Hubbard actually invented the term?
As far as the other rhetoric you are basically saying that most people who start a movement must be what?…..Ah yes a sociopath.
How convenient!
Sorta cuts down the competition for the Government doesn’t it?
So basically you are saying such people as Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Siddhārtha Gautama and even Jesus Christ probably were psychopaths…you know ’cause most people who state movements are…ya know…whatever.
How where you able to determine this personality analysis from a distance?
Your comparison to who…Manson…in my opinion is absurdly ridiculous or ridiculously absurd. First of all Manson didn’t start a movement. He started a “family” that murdered people on his behalf!
I suggest you read Helter Skelter.
Isene:
are you against all pyskofarmca. Ex lithium, ani-psykotics, ani eplepsy, altzimer medics, demens meds? anti schziofren?
Do you think this symptom should/could be audited/tech handled? Should/can the tech help psycose?
If it is a physical problem, it would usually require a physical cure.
But I have seen physical changes through auditing. I need to research more to have a better informed opinion on this.
E-jains,
Please don’t make ridiculus comparisons with Manson. Again, Hubbard aimed for the stars and reached the clouds.
Also, I’ve made comparisments with the people who are Scientologists with those who are against it. Without knowing anything about Scientology certain characteristics can be made just from the followers and anti-followers. I make it very brief.
Pro-Scientology
People who feel they need to improve their lives, normal people, some very successful artists and entrepreneurs.
Anti-Scientology
Anonymous: Youngsters with masks who picket and some of them seem to lack self respect.
Some psychiatrists: They drug people down and lock them in for a living.
Journalists: Their duty is to challenge people with questions. Most of them have a negative and critical viewpoint whatever they write about.
Which groups aim for eternity and beyond?
Hi Hubbardiane…(rest of name obscured)
You’ve made some sweeping generalisations there. eg. I’m anonymous. I’m 43. I’m not against the tech per se, but against the CoS and its abuses. But that’s not the whole of my being. I aim for eternity and beyond too!
Abel,
I think that certain psychiatric drugs might be helpful for some patients. The major number one important thing is that the patient himself should decide what’s best for him.
Secondly, the use of any drug or medicine should be minimalized as far as possible. I’d say I would support about 20 % of the use of the psychiatric medication of today. I think psychiatric medication can be useful when you have a severe psychiatric illness that cannot be solved with therapy. Again, ask the patient and let him/her decide.
Caution and carefulness is what I want to put into psychiatry.
Hubbardianen: 98% agree 😉 And it´s a important debate, to bad there is ppl giving critics of the industry a hard time to do a serious debates (ex batshit weirdos like Comission for human rights)
Psychiatry have done amazing progressions the last 20 yrs 50 yrs aswell, we know extreamy mutch more about the human mind and brain to day than 20 yrs ago (more than any ot 69 even can imaginate he can do)
Ofcource i, like moust ppl don´t like the hard medic prescription. But that really don´t have to do with the “pyschs” or there reserch. It has to to with the comuninty, how we think and act, around you (and also ofcurce, the medical industry)
How mutch has the tech got uppdated, re-reserched and changed the las 50 yrs (exept Miscavige-edititons of OT8 and 3) ? And if i´, wrong, how are this “reserchers” and wath are there references? We know so mutch more than 50 yrs ago, so the tech should be up to date right?
Isene: You probaly already know, but you still got a long ride to go. But i wish you good luck.
I am unimpressed by critics who “know” what state I am in and that “I have a long way to go”. Let arrogance go.
Ofcource you do. Just keep on doing wath you are doing and you´ll e fine. 😉
sorry i ment “ofcurce you are”
Abel,
I agree that the tech probably could be upgraded and improved. However, that also opens up for squirreling and therefore it was agreed to keep the tech intact when Hubbard passed away.
I think CCHRs purpose is good, to critically audit and observe the psychiatric industry. However, many of their points are severly overblown, like claiming the psychiatrists were behind 9/11 (where’s the evidence for that?), responsible for the starving of Africa etc. some of it are just ridiculous. CCHR must rise up and adapt a more intellectual, scientific and nuanced approach to psychiatry, otherwise people will not take them seriously.
Yes, there are abuses in psychiatry. Yes, some of their methods rather harm than improve the individual. But I don’t believe every psychiatrist is evil, there are certainly many psychiatrists who try to imrpove their patients. I think they should just open up for a more psychological/scientology and spiritual viewpoint regarding mental heath issues.
I am not against putting a warning label on information to inform people about the contents and potential harm of the information, so that they can decide for themselves, if they want to see it or not.
Geir, in your doubt formula, you referred to the public perception of the Church of Scientology. Here’s a story about research commissioned by the CoS about its public profile in Pinellas County, Florida: http://www.sptimes.com/2003/05/23/Tampabay/Church_requests_that_.shtml
My hunch is that Scientologists were never informed of anything like the findings in that survey.
And the Tampa Bay area is where the church should have the best PR area control…
Why? I read that he was a Freezoner and outspoke critic of the current church, who was found dead in a swimming pool on May the 29th 2007.
He also wrote a very good argument on his webpage criticizing the confidentiality of the upper levels.
So why do you consider him as a testament as to why some fo the tech deserves to be confidential?
Yes,Ken Ogger was indeed a freezoner.
However he was a very special freezoner.
You know why?
He was implanted.
Seriously.
Just type Ken Ogger Black Dianetics on a good search engine.
His story is indeed a testament as to why some tech needs to be confidential,though to say the least it’s damning evidence of DM’s SP valence.Well that and the murder too….
Over the years I’ve been honestly suprised this isn’t more of issue to the Freezone.As stats will eventually go into non existence in CO$ and rise exponentially in the Freezone,DM will go nuts and will probably attack the head free Auditors and Critics.Being the psychotic man that DM is,was for some time,and always will be until a proper handling; he will probably try to use Black Dianetics on the mounting resistance.Just look at what Hitler(Obvious SP too) tried to do at the end of WW2 with his “Superweapons”.Problem here being DM has the tech to harm not only MEST but Theta itself.
Links of interest here.
And no the account isn’t mine 🙂
See my note above. There’s no evidence of PDH’ing or murder of Ken Ogger — and the two people in the church that would know (Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun) have now left the church. As embarressed as they are about the heavy-handed legal tactics of the church, they have been pretty clear that no extreme measures like PDH’ing, etc. were used by OSA.
See my rebuttal to this above.
Anonymous,
Some data should be confidential just because it can influence the person on lower level auditing or because the PC is not ready for it. Simple.
Follow Source 🙂
Goes into DM valence.
Unless of course you’re a fully uniformed Sea Org or RTC admin,in which case feel free to let your restimulative qualities rip into the pitiful money making man animals all around you!!!
(Lets out evil laugh)
Goes out of DM valence.
I prefer to think for myself instead of blindly following some “source”.
🙂
Tsk,tsk,tsk.
I think the MAA needs to see this one.
WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES?
Hey Geir it’s me again,
Looking at your company website were you ever part of WISE in the CO$?
Maybe it’s because you’re unconventional(being a next gen free code company) but with my Norwegian Dictionary I wasn’t able to figure out if you use LRH’s admin technology or not.
Do you state it somewhere or do I need to go back and wordclear some more? 😉
Also tech wise since you’ve attained OT8 and all,do you do research auditing?
Do you audit at all?
If you do so,what exactly are your rates? 🙂
Remember,you don’t have to answer these questions if you feel OSA is on to you.
FreeCode uses only the org board (albeit modified) and the Admin Scale. These are excellent tools.
No, I don’t do research auditing. No auditing at all (yet).
The only thing that matters is observing for yourself, it doesn’t matter if it’s the “source”. Step 1: Learn the materials. Step 2: Apply it and observe. Everything else is a waste of time. Nothing is true before you have observed it to be true, it doesn’t matter if LRH, COB or anyone says differently.
I feel sorry for scientologists that just “follow” a doctrine without really making an effort to observe its results, and also people who write up a success stories on courses that they failed to understand and apply to their life.
I think one of the good things about these debates surrounded by so many critics is that everything I (or any Scientologist) say is carefully criticized and turned against you. That forces you to watch your own words and build up a more intellectual argument for what you are trying to say. That’s why I enjoy a debate.
I now realize how people not used to be on TV can just “throw out” things that can create a mediastorm while e.g. more experienced politicians are very careful with what they say, they know that every word count.
With “Follow source” I meant that LRH discovered the basics of Scientology and with some help of others developed it further. He then laid out a gradient level from Purif up to OT XV (or higher). I think it’s a good start to follow that path, even though Ron’s Org and others have a slightly different path with many more steps (I believe) and perhaps/probably squirrel tech.
You first have to learn how to crawl before you learn how to walk.
I saw your request for hard stats on ESMB. Thanks for doing that. I’m looking forward to see the responses. A few more questions:
1. Sorry if you already have discussed this but while on your 2 years research is it fair for me to assume that the Church did not know you were working on doubt? You said you were in good standing up to the time you posted your formula. I’m assuming this would not be the case if they had known and the DSA would have certainly not ask you to go on the internet to help with the “fictitious” accusations.
2. Sorry I can’t find it anymore but you mentionned something like 55 (?) publics in your area trying to finance the Ideal Org. Do you know of any other public in Oslo or other areas publicly stepping out following your announcement? No need to give names but any order of magnitude?
Thanks D
1. The Org and FSSO knew I was in Doubt regarding doing the OTA program – but that was not such a big deal.
2. There are several Oslo public in doubt. I will not say more than that.
Thanks for your response. Here are some more questions:
1. Were you able to find out what is really happening in Germany? Several years ago we were frequently getting briefed by the IAS that true SPs and Psychs were trying to shut down Scientlology in Germany. I know that millions of dollars where raised in the name of “saving Germany”. I personally donated thousands of dollars towards that cause. I’m starting to think that the Church was truly trying to silence whistleblowers instead of fighting true suppression. Can you share your thoughts/discoreries on this?
2. I know you mentioned puplic were informed not to be in comm with you. As far as you know was that done in writing or verbally? Did you received any justice action yet, such as being ordered to a rollback, sec checking, ethics summon to Flag/FSSO, non-enturbulation order or even a Comm Ev? If so have you complied, ignored or simply declined? Did you received a written SP Declare yet?
3. Are you ready to share what happened at the Hard Rock Cafe? Did anyone showed up? Friend or foe?
4. Would you be willing to share your 50 questions questionaire and the answers you got?
I really appreciate your willingness to be in comm on this. I will respect your choice to answer or not any of my questions. ARC, D
1. There were real suppression in Germany. There were also whistleblowers. The churxh was (is) unable to recognize the difference. After Germany, there was France…
2. The public has been verbally briefed and verbally told to disconnect. No justice action so far – I can’t see how it would be relevant to order me anywhere in a church I am not a member of. No SP declare either.
3. Three people showed up – two Scientologists and one main Anon in Norway. They were all friendly (people respond well to friendliness). One of the Scientologists were quite intense, though asking many critical (of my position) questions. He is a very new Scientologist, saying he had done one year of research like me and came up with an opposite conclusion. He knew little of the various points I raised…
4. Nope
OT V: “Would you be willing to share your 50 questions questionaire and the answers you got?”
isene: “Nope”
This seems odd to me, Isene. If you received relavent and important information from first-hand witnesses to what is happening at Int, do you not think it is important .. and in the interest of transparency .. to let us know what you have learned? If you need to change/remove names to protect identities, that would be completely understandable. But to keep it to yourself seems to go against your own wish for transparency that you want from the Church.
I will release them in altered form as the questions and answers could reveal the identity of the people I asked.
Thanks (and sorry for mistakenly calling you by your last name, instead of your first, Geir.) 🙂
Call me by any name as long as I understand you are addressing me 🙂
Hey Geir it’s me again with 2 questions.
1.Did you either use study tech to learn other languages?English for example?
2.Reading the new piece of Orwellian Propaganda that calls itself Freedom Magazine DM apparently wants to build 3 new AO’s in Canada,Latin America( Mexico really),and Africa(South Africa really).Can you give any insight into just what is in DM’s mind as he peddles this while Int stats in Class 4 orgs are sliding into non existence? I have a feeling this isn’t like the Ideal Orgs (an obvious property sham) because AO’s tend to “demand” more public presence in order to survive(though that hasn’t stopped DM’s other vain monstrosities) than most normal orgs.
Also as your experience as and on OT8,do you think that DM just might finally release Super Power and OT 9 and 10 anytime soon?Out exhange donations can’t last forever…..
If so do you think the CO$ has even enough numbers of auditors or technical viability to accomplish this at this point?
God knows they barely were able to do it with New OT8 on the Freewinds(What with the number of suicides and sporadic diseases AHEM I mean “accidents” and “coincidences” AHEM :)the first couple of weeks.
Also before I leave,this probably is an incredibly obviously answered question but did you experience any Major Technical Outpoints on New OT8 with regards to Sanity and Somatics?Because well yeah……
Hey Geir it’s me again with 2 questions.
1.Did you either use study tech to learn other languages?English for example?
2.Reading the new piece of Orwellian Propaganda that calls itself Freedom Magazine DM apparently wants to build 3 new AO’s in Canada,Latin America( Mexico really),and Africa(South Africa really).Can you give any insight into just what is in DM’s mind as he peddles this while Int stats in Class 4 orgs are sliding into non existence? I have a feeling this isn’t like the Ideal Orgs (an obvious property sham) because AO’s tend to “demand” more public presence in order to survive(though that hasn’t stopped DM’s other vain monstrosities) than most normal orgs.
Also as your experience as and on OT8,do you think that DM just might finally release Super Power and OT 9 and 10 anytime soon?Out exhange donations can’t last forever…..
If so do you think the CO$ has even enough numbers of auditors or technical viability to accomplish this at this point?
God knows they barely were able to do it with New OT8 on the Freewinds(What with the number of suicides and sporadic diseases AHEM I mean “accidents” and “coincidences” AHEM :)the first couple of weeks.)
Also before I leave,this probably is an incredibly obviously answered question but did you experience any Major Technical Outpoints on New OT8 with regards to Sanity and Somatics?Because well yeah……
I learned English before I got into Scientology. But I got much better doing the Student Hat in English.
I believe Miscavige will do anything to keep up the facade – especially trying to create expansion where he believe it will show the most. He will canibalize the local orgs to show expansion at FLAG and AOs (like the recent “Do your grades at Flag”).
I can’t see Miscavige release OT IX nad X. I doubt he will get SuperPower out the door.
OT 8 was fantastic – the best action I’ve ever done. I experienced no outpoints on that level.
Hej Geir
I just want to submit this hightone film I just saw. http://www.youtube.com/user/Ronsfriends
I cant verify its content regarding to what really happend or the truth of it – but nevertheless it is very fun to see people study and practice scientology.
Any Scientology is better then no Scientology – and these people have wins.
Do you believe in God?
Yes, I believe we are all gods, potentially.
Geir,
I’m a little bit curious regarding exteriorization.
1. When exterior, is the vision better than with the human eyes? 360 degree vision?
2. Do you see both with body eyes and theta eyes at the same time?
3. Is the body more difficult to control when exterior?
1. I have had fairly short exteriorizations with full perceptions. I didn’t notice how wide-angel it was, but better than with physical eyes.
2. I perceived only directly (not via the body) while on the outside.
3. Yes (for me at least).
I followed all of your text here, including all the nomenclature with which I am very familiar, having been a Scientologist since the mid 1970’s.
Most of the ranting critics of the COS have never studied a book on the subject, or been helped by an assist, or left an auditing room on cloud 9 feeing incredible.
Dianetics and Scientology work, as you and I well know, so it will survive David Miscavaige and any other senior people in the COS.
However I heard about physical abuse by DM way back in 1984/5 before he even lead the COS. Hearing it again and again from so many people now, makes me feel these things occured whether DM was dealing with SP’s PTS people or Ustats.
John Travolta is credited with having said how great the Tech is, and how it works, but how he feels it is being led by the wrong people. He may or may not have said this.
Anyway I fully intend to reach the top of the Bridge, and nothing is going to stop that.
JD
Hi JD, I hope I’m not a ranting critic! :p Just wondering if I’ve read you correctly that you do believe DM is physically abusive. If so, what do you think members of the church ought to do about that?
Kind regards,
H
Hi Heather, well I think I have heard this too many times from too many people now for there not to be some substance to it.
You know if someone does out wthics thing and get a knowledge report written about them it goes on their file, and then if the volume reaches a certain level, they are declared PTS (Potential Trouble Source) something that Scientology can and does handle, or a SP (Supressive Personality) something that Scientology does not have the time to handle at present.
I feel that if the volume of these complaints were against someone else in the Church of Scientology, they would have been seriously looked at by now. So that is what I think should happen, ie: brave people in Scientology have to say ‘you may be the leader (and what a tough job that must be), but the volume of complaints means for the good of the Scientology Technology being gotten out to people, we need to address these numerous and similar complaints, and if needed change the leadership, and maybe a number of others who have failed to deal with this issue.
Let me state now, that I have definitely heard some real tripe about David Miscavaige. For example that actor (who is OTV1) who said in an interview that David Miscavaige is 1.1 on the tone scale. Phew that is a real misunderstanding of the tone scale, and a shock that his confusion has not been handled. DM is definitely 1.1, it is even funny to say that.
Anyway that is my view.
Sorry about the typos Heather. The beginning of the second paragraph should read ‘ You know if someone does out ethics things’.
Blush …
Oops another typo. The last part should have said David Miscavaige is definitely NOT at 1.1 on the tone scale.
I cannot stop laughing about that statement. By an OTV1 !!! unbelievable.
My wife has only been studying the subject for 1 year, and she finds that incredible.
I’ve actually spent some time discussing Scientology with many critics and come to the conclusion that there are different types.
1. Truly evil people who do not want to see any betterment of mankind.
2. Confused people too low down on the tone scale.
3. People who think all of this is just so incredible they can’t just believe it. Past lives? Are we spirits?
4. Normal people who just don’t care about Scientology and think they are meat bodies but live a happy, ethical life.
Hubbard once said “never discuss Scientology with a critic”. I agree to some extent and I don’t agree to some extent. First of all and most of the time, if it’s a hardcore critic, it’s a waste of time. They will never change in this lifetime. But… I’ve experienced that if you argue politely and intellectually for your point and try to explain, you might ease the “hatred” of the critic. That’s the best that can come out of it. Instead of them thinking they are 100 % right they might think they are 60-70 % right.
So I realize more and more that trying to find the right people for Scientology is what I really should be doing, those who have a more natural interest in who we are and believe that we are spiritual beings etc. Eventually somewhere in the future the top of mankind (OTs, ethical scientologists, non-scientologists who are ethical and want to improve the world etc) will help bring the middle of mankind up… and eventually the bottom part (SPs, criminals, confused people etc) will get higher in tone I hope. Everything is connected. That’s why we have the dynamics. Hmmm…. on the other hand, if most hardcore critics could be taken down from 100 % sure down to 70 % sure that might be an improvement also. Conclusion: Some critic debate is perhaps important?
Will I continue to debate with critics? Yes. Why? Because it’s fun.
H, your category 4 is the closest in describing me, except for the fundamental issue that I do not think we are just “meat bodies”. Along with billions of others on this earth, I believe we are a soul (or spirit) with a body.
Do you not consider that in discussion with a critic you might learn something and that your 100% belief in scientology might be transformed to, say, a 95% belief?
H
Heather,
I forgot your class, sorry. 🙂
Not a 100 % Scientology believer? Me? That’s right, I’m not an orthodox Scientologist. I would say I’m something like a 70-80 % Scientologist. I have to experience more auditing before I believe more. I take one step at a time before making conclusions. But so far so good.
To me this sounds like the thoughts of someone truly indoctrinated. Where would Michael Pattinson, the OT8 who left Scientology and now considers Clear and OT to be utterly false, fall on your spectrum?
Those higher level OTs that has left the philosophy (not CoS) really makes me curious. It also makes me questions them. Why didn’t they leave earlier? How come they’re going on and on, OT-level after OT-level, but not until the top level they will start to dislike Scientology? Strange that it should take so long time. I see several possibilites.
1. They were blatantly stupid and just went through “the motions” all the way up to OT VIII with none or very small case gain.
2. They had some case gain and lots of money and figured, what a hell, let’s just continue through all of this and see if I get any OT-abilities.
3. They had too much expectations.
4. They had a lot of case gain but now wants to stop other people from also having gains. (This is highly unlikely though).
(5. Those who went up to OT VIII and still loves the tech).
I’ve read Pattinsons story actually and what can I say? Going up the bridge seems to be an individual journey, and a difficult one too. Some people have reported much gain from the OT-levels while others have reported moderate gain.
The only thing I can do is to get higher on the bridge and evaluate the results.
I believe #3 is a all to common one.
#3 is very common, and for good reason. It is not so much skepticism about Scientology per se (at least in my case) as it is skepticism about such claims in general. If you were told that mankind were created from a clump of clay (there is some school of thought that believes/believed this, can’t recall the group), would you accept this without any evidence? Scientologists may claim to have evidence of psychic powers, etc., but we don’t, so we are unlikely to simply believe these things. Is it so wrong to be skeptical?
When I see a clear or an OT demonstrate an _objective, empirical, measurable_ supernormal phenomenon (perfect memory, telekinesis, or other _measurable_ cause over MEST), then I can give these things some credit. Call me closed-minded, arrogant, what have you. I’m a medical student, so I better call myself scientific ;).
Nothing wrong with being sceptical – as long as it doesn’t kill curiosity 🙂
You write that somewhere in the future the “top of the mankind” will help bring the rest of mankind up and seem to imply that it will depend more or less on Scientology’s success if i understand you right.
What makes you so certain, that Scientology is the way to achieve this?
In which way are “clears” and “OT”s more ethical and advanced than other people?
There are lots of ethic and warm-hearted people who are not Scientologists. Anybody who wants to improve the world, is ethical etc is someone I consider the top of the pyramid.
But Scientologists as a group and as individuals actually have a purpose to improve the world. I’ve met many Scientologists and I can tell you, speaking in broad terms, that they are more positive and with good hearted goals than the average person.
There are “OTs” that are non etchical, of course.
Ha, ha, RJ. Yeah. E-jains…and Bill and Hillary. 😀
Ftttttt. True. And excellent advice. I doubt it will be taken.
Nom
I (E-jains) read it years ago. I wasn’t trying to claim Manson started a movement, though I think he would’ve if he’d gained sufficient popularity. LRH started a group that developed a thug arm to harass and intimidate. As far as R2-45 goes, LRH’s son said he was not kidding about it and that the joking attitude was to cover himself from suspicion. Behind closed doors, R2-45 was for a while a serious deal.
I would hesitate to bring out Ron Jr. as a creditable source. Google.
I’ve always been skeptical of LRH jr., though I reserve the possibility that his denial of previous claims was made under financial duress.
I think the “Admissions of L. Ron Hubbard” are however valid, and give a true look into the mind of the man. They are responsible for, among other things, getting Gerry Armstrong, LRH’s personal biographer, away from any involvement with the man and Scientology.
From the admissions: “Material things are yours for the asking. Men are your slaves.” “You may use force and your will with
utter impunity for all things obey.” “The love of women is not necessary to your ego. You are above them.”
The man he mentions named Jack Parsons was a friend of his he met through occultist Aleister Crowley. It has been suggested the admissions are a work in self-hypnosis as prescribed by Crowley to “turn oneself” into the statements made. Further, the frequent references to his Guardian angel are a staple of Crowley’s magick.
This may not be relevant to the tech itself – even though it may be true.
I applaud you for your courage. More than that I applaud you for having completed OT8 and your continued respect of the technology that makes everything the Church does worthwhile. I do have some questions.
1. Have you ever enquired as to what criteria is used when counting the number of “Scientologists”? The reason I ask is that one of the first things people do when they sign up on certain courses is sign a document subscribing to the beliefs of Scientology. It seems to me that even if they did not continue to do any courses, auditing, read any books or visit a Church of Scientology, they would continue to subscribe to those beliefs. I ask because one of the fundamentals of logic is examining assumptions. It sounds like the assumption is that a Scientologist is someone who is actively on course or getting auditing. I personally know individuals who continue to count themselves as Scientologists even though they have not participated in any Church services or activities in many, many years. I have often wondered how any of the religions can possibly get an accurate count of their numbers. Example: the count of Christians in the world must be a guess, because not all people who consider themselves to be Christians attend Sunday services.
2. Have you ever examined the timeline on the cultural agreements and laws of the country governing abusive behavior? As an example, when I was a child in the early 1950s, it was very common for men to hit their children, wives and each other. No legal action was taken on it because a man was “head of his household” and men were men, prone to fighting. No big deal at that time. Fast forward to 2009 and we have hot lines for abuse, and immediate arrest for assault and battery, whether or not the individuals involved in the physical altercation want to press charges. I bring this up because what was acceptable in the 1950s to the 70s is no longer acceptable. Times and laws have changed. What was acceptable in LRH’s time is no longer acceptable for Church leaders. BTW I have not done any courses, auditing or participated in any Church activities myself for many, many years and I still think of myself as a Scientologist in my behavior, even though I would never say I was a Scientologist in a census or a survey because I don’t have an active membership in the IAS any more.
3. Since I am still on a mailing list, about two years ago I had personal experience with getting orders that supposedly came from DM. I was contacted repetitively by Sea Org staff members who told me that I must buy a set of basic books because that was command intention, which came directly from DM. I asked for a copy of those orders in writing. I was never given a copy of any such orders so I do not know whether this was because no such orders existed or because they did and they did not want me to be able to confirm or not confirm the orders. Have you found any written evidence of such orders from DM to staffs of the Church of Scientology?
4. What specifically would have to happen for you to be satisfied that the wrongs you see in the Church of Scientology had been resolved? Or do you simply want the Church of Scientology destroyed down to the ground? It seems foolish to me to destroy something when it can be fixed. In fact, LRH says that only a madman would destroy something that could be fixed. I personally know many of the staffs that have worked in the Churches over a period of several decades. These are good, well-intentioned people and they have worked hard to build something worthwhile. I count myself as one of them even though I am no longer actively working on this. Surely righting the wrongs that can be seen does not require destroying the work of countless thousands of people who were and are very well-intended, honest and caring? What would you suggest other than dismantling the Church of Scientology?
Thanks
Maria
1. Yes – I use the official number of Scientologists given in Freedommag.org (less than 10000 for the Tampa Bay area. Do the math. There are not 8 or 10 million world wide.
2. I am wall aware of the cultural development in this are.
3. No, only verbal – but lots and lots of verbal references to DM originating the “You have to buy The Basics”.
4. If it can be reformed; Great. I am not sure it can be done. I would be happy if what I wrote in my Doubt write-up and on this blog was fixed.
Hubbardiane I think your 4 types are spot on, but you missed an important 5th type of person. That is those who are in need of change in their lives. Some of them find Dianetics and Scientology, find out it works, and vastly improve themselves and their lives.
I don’t spend a lot of time discussing it with people who have not tried it out for themselves, apart from stating my own gains.
As I already stated many of the critics have never studied a book on the subject cover to cover.
I would like to concur with everyone above who has stated that it is the Technology discovered in Dianetics and Scientology that is the only really important thing. Ron Hubbard was alive 11 years after I became a Scientologist, and always stated through his personnel asistant (who was in Johannesburg at the time) that Ron wants everyone to understand that he is just a man. I believe also that their were others helping him in the early days with his research.
What he discovered works so amazingly well, I just wish some of the people critisizing who really have no foundation of knowlegde, would take the time out to at least read a book and take some auditing, and judge for themselves.
I applaud you for your courage. More than that I applaud you for having completed OT8 and your continued respect of the technology that makes everything the Church does worthwhile. I do have some questions.
1. Have you ever enquired as to what criteria is used when counting the number of “Scientologists”? The reason I ask is that one of the first things people do when they sign up on certain courses is sign a document subscribing to the beliefs of Scientology. It seems to me that even if they did not continue to do any courses, auditing, read any books or visit a Church of Scientology, they would continue to subscribe to those beliefs. I ask because one of the fundamentals of logic is examining assumptions. It sounds like the assumption is that a Scientologist is someone who is actively on course or getting auditing. I personally know individuals who continue to count themselves as Scientologists even though they have not participated in any Church services or activities in many, many years. I have often wondered how any of the religions can possibly get an accurate count of their numbers. Example: the count of Christians in the world must be a guess, because not all people who consider themselves to be Christians attend Sunday services. BTW I have not done any courses, auditing or participated in any Church activities myself for many, many years and I still think of myself as a Scientologist in my behavior, even though I would never say I was a Scientologist in a census or a survey because I don’t have an active membership in the IAS any more.
2. Have you ever examined the timeline on the cultural agreements and laws of the country governing abusive behavior? As an example, when I was a child in the early 1950s, it was very common for men to hit their children, wives and each other. No legal action was taken on it because a man was “head of his household” and men were men, prone to fighting. No big deal at that time. Fast forward to 2009 and we have hot lines for abuse, and immediate arrest for assault and battery, whether or not the individuals involved in the physical altercation want to press charges. I bring this up because what was acceptable in the 1950s to the 70s is no longer acceptable. Times and laws have changed. What was acceptable in LRH’s time is no longer acceptable for Church leaders.
3. Since I am still on a mailing list, about two years ago I had personal experience with getting orders that supposedly came from DM. I was contacted repetitively by Sea Org staff members who told me that I must buy a set of basic books because that was command intention, which came directly from DM. I asked for a copy of those orders in writing. I was never given a copy of any such orders so I do not know whether this was because no such orders existed or because they did and they did not want me to be able to confirm or not confirm the orders. Have you found any written evidence of such orders from DM to staffs of the Church of Scientology?
4. What specifically would have to happen for you to be satisfied that the wrongs you see in the Church of Scientology had been resolved? Or do you simply want the Church of Scientology destroyed down to the ground? It seems foolish to me to destroy something when it can be fixed. In fact, LRH says that only a madman would destroy something that could be fixed. I personally know many of the staffs that have worked in the Churches over a period of several decades. These are good, well-intentioned people and they have worked hard to build something worthwhile. I count myself as one of them even though I am no longer actively working on this. Surely righting the wrongs that can be seen does not require destroying the work of countless thousands of people who were and are very well-intended, honest and caring? What would you suggest other than dismantling the Church of Scientology?
Thanks
Maria
Thanks for your answers Geir.
1. Yes – I use the official number of Scientologists given in Freedommag.org (less than 10000 for the Tampa Bay area. Do the math. There are not 8 or 10 million world wide.
These numbers are so baffling. I wonder where the Freedommag.org gets their numbers? (That’s a rhetorical questions)
The only thing I could find on this was a quote on the web from the ABC ‘Nightline’ radio show, 14 February 1992. Forrest Sawyer is interviewing CoS President Heber Jentzsch.
Sawyer: “How do you get to call them members?”
Jentzsch: “Because they joined and they came in and they studied Scientology.”
Sawyer: “They took one course, maybe.”
Jentzsch: “Well, that’s how valuable the course is. Eight million people, yes, over a period of the last – since 1954.”
From the same journalist: “The Roman Catholic Church claims as ‘Catholic’ anyone baptised into the Church. There is a procedure for renouncing membership, but it is little known and rarely used. ”
So it seems there is some basis for the very, very high numbers, but like you, I am very disenchanted with the sales “puffery” and sensationalizing.
2. I am wall aware of the cultural development in this are.
Well, I was trying to figure out when this claimed DM beating up of people happened, was this just last year or many years ago? It is so hard to get any info on the web that gives you the exact time, place, form and event. Have you found any references as to when that occurred? (or allegedly occurred)
I am really kind of weirded out by this whole thing. I don’t know about you, but if a staff member hit me or beat me up, there would be all hell to pay and I would do whatever it took to bring that individual to justice. I have to wonder why these staffs don’t do something effective about all this – I do know many staff and I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that they are all brainwashed or in fear for their lives. You are a very good example. You acted on what you believed was the right thing and you are very much alive and well, as you have answered the questions I asked. My personal opinion on assault and battery is that it is a felony crime and charges should be brought just as they would be on any citizen, regardless of their position or faith. So why does no one bring charges? Do you know why?
3. No, only verbal – but lots and lots of verbal references to DM originating the “You have to buy The Basics”.
Well, I thought perhaps you had found something. I do not think it excuses the staff from following a verbal order. That is very much against Church policy and you are right, telling you that you are to be the E.D. is way, way, way against Church policy.
4. If it can be reformed; Great. I am not sure it can be done. I would be happy if what I wrote in my Doubt write-up and on this blog was fixed.
I would be very, very happy too.
0. Keep it short.
1. I have seen the reference from Heber. He doesn’t seem to admit that people do die.
2. The answer see,s to be along the line of why women stay with a man who beats her – and often the victim will defend the abuser. Factor in the much more heavy consequences of departing Scientology (“loosing your eternity”), even heavier abuses could be tolerated.
BTW; Just know that leaving the church will not mean loosing your eternity.
Geir, OT8 is supposed to handle the reason for amnesia on the whole track. Did OT8 do this for you? It seems one can’t lose eternity … but if one suffers amnesia from life-to-life, aren’t we still in the same trap till we handle that? What’s your view of this?
I am in more control of my eternity now, after OT8, than before. Whether it fully handled the reasons for amnesia on the whole-track is yet to be seen. I’ll report back next life time and tell you (if I can still remember the password to this blog). In the meantime I have much more adventures to do this lifetime. I’m enjoying the hell out of life as it is.
Actually, there’s a guy called Jet Heller (OT VIII) who spoke about his “whole track recall” beginning to come back.
You care to post links of his story?Sounds interesting.
Maria, regarding when DM allegedly beat people, there are video interviews with Marty Rathbun and Amy Scobee and others that date them up to at least 2004. You can find those videos here: http://www.truthrundown.org
Thanks again, Geir
I quite agree on your point on losing eternity. It is simply not possible for an immortal spiritual being to lose eternity. That’s the one thing you cannot lose.
Thank you for validating the technology. I have seldom seen such an even-handed, honest doubt formula as yours and I very much appreciate your testimonial on the value of the Scientology auditing in your life. I sincerely hope that this forum you have opened and continue to run will create a positive and beneficial effect and I sincerely hope that Church staff who are in a position to correct the wrongs will act with determination and integrity on what they have found. I think there is hope and you sir, are my hope.
Geir surely the answer to Maria’s as to why no-one brings cgarges is that it is considered an act of supression to involve the police (which you would have to do if bringing charges).
Hence leading to the threat of ‘loosing your eternity’ etc.
This is a favourite threat that has even been used on me after an upset with a staff member years ago.
Recently I have had an official letter stating it was clear that I had not done wrong, and was in good standing.
This should stop being used as a lever to intimidate people, and should itself be considered a very suppresive thing to suggest (coming from anybody).
James, I believe you are right. I think that when any form of justice, Scientology or otherwise, is used to threaten, intimidate or coerce, it has been perverted and becomes itself a form of criminality. As far as I known, there are no Church policy or writings that condone or recommend threatening a person with expulsion for real or imagined wrongs.
Quote from L. Ron Hubbard: “The virtues of patriotism, loyalty and devotion to the government are not dead by some strange social decay. They are dead because people feel their government no longer protects them, even attacks them, opens the door on them to easy psychiatric seizure, fantastic taxation and personal insecurity.” http://www.lronhubbard.org/human/justice.htm
The same is true of any group, not just governments.
My opinion is that when any Scientology materials are used in a way that contradicts the creed and codes of Scientology, then they are being misapplied. These are senior to policy and to any other written or verbal materials. If a policy, written statement, or verbal statement contradicts these then they are not valid, even when the person violating them is L. Ron Hubbard himself or the Chairman of the Board of the Church of Scientology. It is just too easy to pick out some line from a policy letter, take it out of context and commit mayhem with it by divorcing it from the body of knowledge it belongs to – checking it against the codes and the creed prevents that from happening.
They are all published online here: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/scientology/users/codes_and_creeds/
Why did we forget that we are thetans?
Why did we forget our OT abilities?
Why do we create our reactive minds?
I would recommend you read the book “Scientology 8-8008”, especially the chapter “The Factors”.
Geir,
I have some considerations from a scientific point of regarding theta, mind, MEST etc. What are your thoughts on the following issues?
1. The thetan is a static, no location in MEST. The mind (picture bank) is part of MEST and surrounds the thetan. When the body dies the thetan “leaves” the body and brings the mind with him. Experiments have shown that when a person dies he gets a couple of grams less in weight, this could indicate what the mind weights. That would mean theoretically that free thetans without bodies “fly around” with their invisible minds surrounding them. They should theoretically be detectable with some advanced equipment since at least the mind is part of MEST?
2. From what I understand a thetan can teleport himself from one location to another. This could be understandable since the thetan is a static, but that would mean the MEST-mind would also teleport with him? Or is it rather that the thetan moves very fast, say speed of light, so the mind moves very quickly too?
3. Hubbard has written about theta-traps. The only way I can see it is that the MEST-mind is the thing that gets caught and the thetan is stuck to the mind and therefore gets caught too?
4. I believe anything that is part of MEST could be destroyed or altered. What if a thetan looses part or whole of his picture bank? Must be hard to get audited?
1. Yes.
2. It could be a matter of un-mocking/re-mocking the mind.
3. Theta traps is possible when the thetan identifies with something MEST (like his/her mind) – attack on the MEST that the thetan identifies with is by proxy an attack on the thetan.
4. One doesn’t need MEST to know things 🙂
Here’s a question regarding the tech. You are interested in what works within the tech. As you have read, there was a definite association between Hubbard and “black magick”/the occult. The “Admissions of L. Ron Hubbard” and his association with Jack Parsons and Aleister Crowley (and perhaps some statements from LRH jr.) all evidence this association. According to Hubbard’s son, black magick is the backbone of the tech, and possibly the only part of it that works. If that is the case then your answer may be right there. Have you looked into Crowley’s “magick” for any tidbits that might have played into the creation of the tech? I have briefly looked myself and all I can find is mumbo jumbo about incantations and summoning spirits..etc etc. The subject appears to be so extensive, and so convoluted, that I’d rather not put in the effort of unraveling it. Perhaps you’ve found something?
The tech I have found that works has nothing to do with black magic. Pick up the book “Self Analysis”. Read & do. Check it out for yourself.
You may delete this due to total irrelevance. I was a physics major before medical school so I love talking about this stuff. I read your take on subjective collapse theory and wondered if you’d encountered the many-worlds theory. It turns out that if the entire universe can be described by one wavefunction consisting of a linear addition of all the wavefunctions of every particle, photon, etc. within it, then we need not worry about these Copenhagen collapse problems. An excellent link: http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#splitsh
There’s certainly no reference to confidential material there.
It is irrelevant. But interesting. And since I am being nice today, I’ll let it pass 😉
Geir,
I have some confusion about the reactive mind and I think the relevance is pretty high. First of all, this contains some confidential material so feel free to edit that out, but I have to go into it in order to describe it. I know reading confidential stuff is not recommended but sometimes Anonymous etc yells out the information so it’s hard to avoid. It’s of course also really hard to know what’s Hubbard and what’s squirrel. Anyway…
In History of Man, Hubbard states:
“The time spent on the present life earlier in Dianetics was very great.”
“…but the same resultat can be achieved much more swiftly with much less skill and cunning when one audits WHOLE TRACK, meaning the track of the theta being.”
From this text I suppose Hubbard means: Audit the whole track. Don’t stick to this lifetime, that’s a waste of time.
[text removed due to reference to possible confidential material]
I guess my official questions are:
1. Do you think the Grades -> NED are valid auditing experiences and necessary to keep on the bridge? (For example, would you recommend Book One auditing instead for a cheaper route?)
2. Should the PC during Grades – > NED stick to this lifetime only?
1. I would recommend the Grades + NED warmly. I would also recommend Book One auditing – it is cheaper but usually a much longer route to Clear. Both routes are a hell of a lot of fun.
2. The PC should run whatever comes up.
Hubbardianen,
The grades are not meant to take you to clear, but do not skip them.
The purpose of the grades (before NED) is to gradually take you to a point where you are more responsible and more able to handle life. The grades also make you more responsive to auditing, by handling what could be blocking your progress.
If you go to Clear via the Dianetics route, you might have to do the grades anyway.
And what Geir wrote is important: The PC should run whatever comes up.
Don’t try to run any other incidents as the person would get ill if he/she isn’t ready to run that incident.
This confuses me:
“And what Geir wrote is important: The PC should run whatever comes up.
Don’t try to run any other incidents as the person would get ill if he/she isn’t ready to run that incident.”
I suppose you mean I shouldn’t skip/stop-in-the-middle-of the incident I’m running and go to another one?
I was once told that the grades was needed to easen the power of the reactive mind. Going straight on NED and skipping the grades is too tough a gradient since some of the engrams can be pretty heavy.
True, you should definitely not skip to another incident before you’re done with the one you’ve started, but what I meant by “not running other incidents” is that you shouldn’t (as the auditor) decide which incident to run.
To explain what I mean in an easy manner, let’s say that you know that the person you’re auditing had an accident when he was 5 years old, then you shouldn’t try to get him to run that incident until it comes up by itself. It won’t pop up until it can be run (you might have to run off a few other incidents first that are piled on top of it). If you try to run it before it is ready to run, then it will only be restimulated instead of eliminated.
(response below)
Yes as I mentioned almost a week ago I read your subjective collapse article. A mechanism is still needed. This sort of free will/soul outside of the physical universe theory has been around since the beginning of the free will vs. physical determinism debate. As I mentioned, the principle of emergence may be a way to circumnavigate the physical determinism problem without calling for a “soul.” In order to bring something new to the table you need to propose a mechanism. I cannot locate one in the subjective collapse article.
1. Did you read the Wikipedia article on emergence, and if so what do you think? I for one did not. I’m very busy right now.
2. Though I’ve given it only fleeting thoughts, I cannot discern any mechanism whereby something non-physical can influence something physical. This is why I think this sort of theory will ultimately remain strictly speculative forever, which will force science to have to leave it alone altogether. Do you have any thoughts on any possible sort of mechanism?
3. You’re writing a book? Exciting. Possible timeframe? For any influence I have on this section of your book, I expect full credits and citations (kidding).
1. I’ve included Emergence in my studies. It may be way to explain AI, but not free will (reason given in my article).
2. A mechanism may in itself be on the path of a self-fulfilling truth toward “bound will”. I will see what I’ll do about that.
3. Time frame… next year sometime. Credits? 😉
“Though I’ve given it only fleeting thoughts, I cannot discern any mechanism whereby something non-physical can influence something physical. This is why I think this sort of theory will ultimately remain strictly speculative forever, which will force science to have to leave it alone altogether. Do you have any thoughts on any possible sort of mechanism?”
Just to add in my 2 cents here ExKane.
But under the logic that the theory of non physical “actions” affecting physical objects is pure speculation,wouldn’t that rule out the existence of life?
Being that life as we have thus far encountered up to right now originated from non life and is made out of non life(molecules,atoms,quarks,etc),wouldn’t you say our existence is a rebuttal to your arguement?
I recognize at heart that,well this damn universe/multiverse doesn’t make any sense(what with the something originating out of nothing fallacy and all) but I can’t grasp how you can’t “see” the mechanism of non physicality affecting on physicality.
Do you ever think about the possibility of the 4th spatial Dimension ExKane?
To us any 4th Dimension would appear to us as a 3-d object,a fragment of it’s proper form forced to become lower to suit our dimension.Thoughtfully we would call any such 4th Dimension “extra” height in recognition of it’s inherent lack of familiarity with us(just as a Flatlander 2-d being would call height “extra” length for example).
There are some scientists who say that such a 4-D spatial dimension would account for “dark” matter in this universe(the 4th “bulging” in on us the theory goes though it’s up to debate if any “transplanted” 4-D,3-D objects would pull gravity/bend spacetime or even follow any laws of physics in this universe naturally).Some of the same scientists even say that some UFO sightings can be explained by this theory(since most UFO sightings are described as “cigar shaped” or “spherical/circular”).
What with all these HUGE variables how can you say with certainty that non physicality CANNOT affect physicality?
At least be an “agnostic” like me when it comes stuff like this!!!
Sorry Geir for the tl:dr but I love campy 4th dimensional concepts like this(philosophically speaking).
It’s the best game in this Universe,ya know?
Not knowing all it’s secrets!!!
Yes, TL;DR but a good read nevertheless.
I know you don’t like discussing confidential material but I’ve been trying to figure something out regarding OT8 and of course you’d be the one to ask. I’m not really expecting an answer, which is fine. (text deleted due to reference to confidential material). Thanks, and I understand if you delete this.
I didn’t delete the whole thing, as I will comment on one thing of OT 8:
OT 8 is the real deal: It deals in real phenomena, it produces real gain.
Are you saying my understanding is correct?
Nope, it’s not correct.
Nevermind, I just read Ariane Jackson’s description of New OT8 after she left. I understand now.
Geir random technical query here but being that most animals who haven’t developed sufficient evolutionary attributes are not picked up by free(in terms of picking up a new body of course)thetans,do you think that as AI advances thetans will be able to pick up robot bodies?
Reading a certain alleged incident on the whole track in ‘Have you lived before this Life” peaked my interest in this.
And as you’re an OT8 who owns a high tech company it would be interesting to say the least your thoughts on this.
Finally,you’re not a professional pc right?
I asked if you were an auditor some time ago and you said “not yet” and this too peaked my curiosity.
Thanks.
On free will inhabiting AI-prepared bodies; Yes, that would be a real possibility.
On me being an auditor; Audited lots of hours on the HQS in the 80’s. That’s it.
It turns out there is definitive proof that the OT3 story is untrue. It is as definitive as the proof that the claim among many Christians that the Earth is four thousand years old (according to the Bible) cannot be true due to Potassium-Argon dating of rocks, which show that the Earth is more like 4 billion years old.
Actually, it is impossible to prove that the universe was not created 4000 years ago inclusive of all evidence that it is much older.
Excuse my use of the word “proof.” These sort of “you can’t prove that so and so was NOT the case” arguments are rather ridiculous. But you’re correct. I can never prove that the the female sex was not created from the rib cage of Adam.
The question is, always, what does the evidence support? And right now the evidence supports … (hint at confidential material).
Wrong.
If you’re talking about certain landmasses supposedly not existing back then,there was a thread on ESMB by a certain freezoner with a fixation on space opera(if you read his postings you’ll understand) who debunked this some time ago.
I would post the link but naturally it has confidential stuff so……..
Hint:the poster has an Asian wise man as his profile pic.
I trust you’ll find him,ExKane!!!:)
If I recall he even goes on tirades about geological layers and such.
It was a thread with like 15 pages if I remember right.
Be prepared for a HUGE read.
And I’m not kidding.
Chris – thanks
Frankly I’m very busy w/ med school these days (exams) and don’t have time for a long read unless it’s on human anatomy. I’ll stick with what’s currently accepted through Argon dating over one person’s argument/rant. 500,000 years vs. the amount stated in OT3 is a large difference to say the least.
ExKane,
I’ve read some detailed “conclusion” on the internet about OT III and why it can’t be true because of geological evidence etc. Well, it’s really hard to say what happened here 75 million years ago (not a secret, it’s in Rons Journal 67). One just have to do the OT-levels in order to find out. Also, just recently scientists discovered that brain cells can reproduce. Something that was not a “fact” for many years.
Actually, Hubbard said something interesting once: “Scientology is like chemistry, perhaps it isn’t true, but it works.”
I don’t see the relevance of the brain cells bit. Of course scientists are discovering new things, throwing out bad theories etc. This is what good science is all about.
What’s relevant to the “can you prove/disprove what the past was like” is this: given the choice between what one man said the past was like and what hard evidence says the past was like, I will choose the hard evidence route.
“I don’t see the relevance of the brain cells bit.”
I think he’s trying to say it’s best not to make absolutist statements with regards to science when a HUGE lack of evidence exists to satisfy either sides(example you saying that the political details of OT3 are just like creationism and did not happen).
My education taught me that it took 300 years for scientists to “discover” that cells exist,divide,and form all life.
Same education taught me that the female orgasm was “discovered” 17 times over the period of human history(seriously…)
Who knows,maybe in a couple hundred years time we find 75 million year old ruins,will you take that as “hard” evidence?
As it is hard to keep this discussion non-confidential, I would like to say that most points in this debate have now been given. Please avoid redundancy on this topic from now.
The whole basic basic on the chain of people’s beef with the scientific details of OT3 is that “it couldn’t possibly have happened”.
They disdain any argument by us scientologists(ours being that through “memory regression” as you would call it Hubbard discovered the incident) as “Well hubbard was crazy,he was a science fiction writer,you’re a brainwashed cultist,he couldn’t possibly have discovered anything tangible”.
They disdain without having looked honestly and without realizing that Hubbard didn’t “discover” the incident through conventional scientific or even physical means(understatement of the century,no?).
He discovered it through MEMORY REGRESSION.All,criticism of Hubbard’s personal style aside,with a lack of tangible physical evidence for EITHER side of the debate,your definition of you’d call “hard” evidence has nothing to do with the debate in the first place!!!
Besides,since your definition of “hard” evidence is fluid and loose enough.What do you think of this?
Hubbard in one of his lectures may or may not have talked about a certain whole track incident which may or not have actually taken place which involved a civilization that began with the letter M and ended with B.(nod nod yeah that one).
If you take it’s name and input it in an astronomy database,the UNTHINKABLE occurs.
A HABITABLE ZONE EXISTS ON 2 PLANETS AND 1 MOON IN THAT SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since this counts under your self styled definition of “hard” evidence,just how the hell could this occur?
The existential language is there to follow Geir’s guidelines on confidential material.
On this one you are not even pointing to confidential material (it is referenced in the Scientology Technical Dictionary) 😉
LOL,you’re right!!!
But for the sake of Churchie scientologists reading this blog,do you think I should just use the M-B work or what?
I personally find it amazing ExKane doesn’t get the reference.
Someone needs to lurk moar 🙂
Typo.
Word nor work.
First, I have no clue what M—B civilization is. I think what you’re saying is: Hubbard said there was a civilization in _____ area of the galaxy, and it turns out that area has 2 planets and 1 moon hospitable to life. Therefore, Hubbard knew about it. This conclusion simply doesn’t follow. (The conclusion is what we call a Non Sequitur.)
Second, hard evidence has absolutely everything to do with this debate. If we take the position that the evidence may change and therefore shouldn’t put any confidence in the current physical evidence – Then I must use a Reduction Ad Absurdum: this means no theory can ever be better than any other (including ones supporting OT3) since – uh oh – the evidence just might change. So abandon all theorizing immediately – it’s a waste of time. That is, this leads directly to nihilism. Again, what is relevant here is what the current physical evidence supports. We know the half-lives of Argon and Potassium. We know their concentrations in the rocks of the relevant areas.
Your logic is sound.
Though it may not hold all the way to your conclusion 😉
Your logic is sound.
Though it may not hold all the way to your conclusions 😉
“I think what you’re saying is: Hubbard said there was a civilization in _____ area of the galaxy, and it turns out that area has 2 planets and 1 moon hospitable to life.”
No I’m just stating that Hubbard must have been one lucky son of a bitch to get that certain detail right out of the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of stars and planets in this galaxy,what with him being a science fiction writer and all ;).
So as to say the odds are certainly not against Hubbard…
(the M-B civilization is one that Hubbard said recently existed or may even exist now so the habitable zone discovery should be most poignant).
Also I don’t see what Modern Argon Potassium dating techniques have to with the political details of OT3.
Clarification please?
Clarification only if confidentiality is preserved.
Indeed.
I’m really not sure what you mean by political details. I’m talking about the geological details (e.g. certain land masses (wink wink) not even existing when LRH said they did). Is that what you’re talking about?
Political details being the story and all.
You know,the naughty bits of OT 3 and such.
As to the myth of the landmasses not existing again,I STRONGLY urge you to read the thread on ESMB I was talking about.
It isn’t just one man’s opinion,the freezoner seriously takes on what seemes to be half the critics on ESMB and he emerges victorious.Come on LURK MOAR,lol! 😉
Geir,
Do you know why a thetan cannot exteriorize at will? I guess it’s a questions of many and complex factors…?
There would be many answers to this question – many are given in the books (like 8-8008). I have an answer in my article on free will.
Oh and about OT8,the “student briefing” that the critics love to spray on the internet…
It’s not real right?
Since it alleges that LRH was talking about the “third and final wall of fire” I already have my doubts about it,but it would be nice to hear from the horses’s mouth if it’s fake or not!!!
Plus in your links section would you mind if you added the pro lrh tech community message board there?
Maybe even introduce yourself perhaps?
Thanks.
It is fake.
I did introduce myself on the Pro Tech board – I’ll add the link.
Geir,
You have stated that Scientology may be the true road to freedom. I’m presuming you believe that the effect of Scientology is to free the thetan from its association with the physical world, thereby enabling it greater ability to exert influence of the physical world. As you said “if free will exists then anything is possible” (or something like that).
If Scientology actually does this, then I think we could agree that you, being OT8, should have a more free thetan than someone who hadn’t done any Scientology. So the question becomes, then, do you have more influence over the physical world around you than other people? If telekinesis isn’t possible, then how can anything be possible?
So, have you ever seen an OT perform telekinesis (yourself included)?
I know you don’t like to focus on these “super powers” issues, but in all honesty it is the only objective criteria that can support your “if free will is real than anything is possible” and “Scientology makes the will freer” (here I’m paraphrasing) claims. Without this, I see no reason to place confidence in your theory.
Now, I’ve never heard of an OT that could perform telekinesis, so I have no reason to believe that Scientology produces this “freeing of the will” effect.
That I have more theta than any person lower on the bridge is not necessarily true. There are plenty of “theta powerhouses” that has never seen the inside of an auditing room. I have more free theta than when I started the bridge, that’s for sure. I.e. more free will, more personal integrity.
Also, there are several demonstrations of free will directly affecting the physical universe throughout history (apart from the obvious one: You are right now directly affecting your physical body, a miracle in its own right 😉 ). Problem is, one could always try to explain away such effects. Try splitting clouds – I have seen several people do that successfully (determine what to do with a cloud, then do it).
The alternative to free will is of course no accountability – a rather grim society.
Do you know if Jeff Hawkins is getting connected back up with the current team of people who still want to use Scientology? Or has he totally given up on the tech?
As a side note, it is hard to access the general questions section of your blog now, at least for me.
ARC,
Alex
Ask Jeff himself. He is a cool guy.
As for the General Questions & Comments, use the link on the upper right on the front page (under the lighthouse picture.
How would I ask him?
His e-mail is located down alon the right side of his blog: http://counterfeitdreams.blogspot.com/
Thanks.
Geir, was there something that happened to you that made you personally decide to leave the COS. I mean like a specific incident?
The start was when I met DM on MV 2006. Then it was the DSA asking me to check the Internet for possible Norwegian journalists about to write articles on “COB allegedly beating people” – summer 2007. That got me searching on the net. The last straw was Tommy Davis’ response to the SP Times. Then I did my doubt write-up.
“David says that Rathbun perpetrated about 50 instences of violence on 22 people”…
how could that happen in a religious order without knowing about and stopping this guy?
it is completely insane to say this.
not to mention how he articulates… saying for example “fucking lunatic”… Do they think this can “sell”?
It doesn’t sell to the general public at least.
There are several inconsistencies:
How could DM put someone on post as IG (Marty) when Guillaume Lesevre in his declaration says that person has zero administrative training in Scientology?
How could it be true that Marty & Mike were beating people at the In Base for more than 18 months before DM as the savior came and rescued the cowed International Executives. If they all know DM is the perfect leader, compassionate and caring; Couldn’t they at least have given him a slight hint earlier (or send him a report) so that he could come and rescue them a bit earlier?
Splitting clouds – Ok if I find the time I will make a simple experiment where I’ll first watch ~20 clouds without trying to split them, and then I’ll do another ~20 where I try to split them. I’ll subtract the two numbers and see how many might have been attributed to willpower. This is far from scientific, but then again so is thinking that you’re willing the clouds to split instead of simple wind/diffusion ;). And yes one can always explain away these effects, but isn’t that why we have science (to enforce a controlled setting) so that we can’t just explain them away? Uri Gellar for example failed a simple controlled test of his “spoon bending” powers on the Johnny Carson show (YouTube – actually, this video is quite interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuaJWLeSmEc).
I’m not saying there’s no free will! Just that it doesn’t lead to infinite possibilities. My point was: your claim that Scientology increases one’s willpower by freeing his/her thetan from association with the physical universe is not supported by the evidence for two reasons: 1. No substantial evidence that anyone can perform telekinesis (if someone really could, it would have grabbed the world’s attention – Uri Gellar came close but was debunked by James Randi), and 2. No substantial evidence that Scientology lends these powers either.
It may just be that the way to objective telekinesis is a very long one. That we haven’t travelled far down that road (enough for hard evidence) does not mean we aren’t travelling in the right direction at some speed.
Could be. But I think there is a deeper issue here, and it relates to conservation of energy. Conservation of energy has never been observed to be violated, not even in quantum mechanics or relativity (mass-energy). When I lift a cup with my hand, I am putting energy into (I am doing “work” on it) and raising it to a higher level of gravitational potential energy. Total energy is conserved because the cup is doing negative work on my hand as I use my arm to raise the cup (you can really feel this with heavy dumbbells). Now think about raising the cup with psychic powers or with the thetan. This means that something nonphysical is lifting the cup, raising its energy state to a higher gravitational potential energy, and at zero expense. Since the thetan is nonphysical, the cup cannot be doing any reciprocal work on it. So we have literally created energy out of nothing.
This is not the only possibility for telekinesis. If the thetan is able to influence the randomity of a quantum state i.e. collapse the wave function, then by extrapolation one may get telekinesis without breaking the law of energy conservation.
Not quite. Wave function collapse is not a means of moving something from one location to another. It is forcing the wave function to take on a certain eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian (total energy). Even in quantum tunneling, where a particle “leaps over” a potential energy barrier greater than its own energy, there is still no violation of energy conservation.
If theta can influence the physical universe through collapsing a quantum state – it does influence it. Then by extrapolation and butterfly effects, other influences could perhaps be possible – and yes, without violation of energy conservation.
Geir,
What do you think of the following?
1. Do think there’s something as ghosts? Would they simply be free thetans who stays in a vicinity?
2. Sometimes ghosts or dead people are reported seen “walking again”. Could this be pictures from the memory bank (mind) that are seen?
3. What do you generally know/think about mediums? Are most of them just hippocrats or do they really know how to communicate with ghosts?
4. Can you communicate with these “ghosts”?
Because once in a while ghosts are reported here and there, and sometimes even seen. Me for myself have never seen anything supernatural.
1. Yes. Yes.
2. Maybe. Or a mocked-up body from the ghost.
3. I don’t know.
4. Sometimes.
I think this is natural rather than supernatural.
I think you’re evading the basic problem – in order to move something around you have to do work, and reciprocal work must be done on the thing that’s moving it. Wave function collapse is not a means of moving anything. So collapsing the wave function of a particle can’t give rise to a butterfly effect that moves the other particles around the original particle. What you’re doing is mixing “real world intuition” with quantum behavior (a common mistake), where our intuition simply doesn’t follow. You’re thinking: I can collapse the wave function, and this will influence the particle, so it will influence the surrounding particles. But in truth there is no difference in the interaction between the particles before collapse of the wave function and after collapse. So by extrapolation you cannot induce a butterfly effect that could result in the net displacement of, say, a cup.
I think you are missing my point. If a subject can change reality by collapsing the wave function, reality is changed.
(But not in a way that allows for telekinesis)
I also thought of a simple experiment to test this “cloud splitting” ability. I was worried that there was no way to control for wind and diffusion – but there is. Take a day when there is _full_ overcast (I don’t think that is very rare in Norway..) and I mean _no_ breaks in the clouds. Now, choose a random spot that you want to split/evaporate, and focus on doing that at that spot. Do not choose a spot that looks light/thin already. This way, we are controlling for wind because that one area you have chosen is protected by neighboring water particles from the wind. Further, statistics says that one area is no more likely to evaporate than any other area.
If you can change reality, reality is changed 🙂
That is a generality that must be deconstructed to find out the _extent to which you can change reality_. You can change reality by picking up a pair of glasses. You cannot change reality by postulating that a pair of glasses will float in the air without touching it.
Why not? If reality is postulated in the first place – it may not need mechanics at all.
And now the conversation devolves into a realm of hypothetical generalizations not supported by the evidence…but I supposed it was bound that way all along. *Goes back to eating his sandwich with his two hands*
🙂
I will propose an idea: What if reality is indeed the result of common agreement amongst free wills. Then, wouldn’t a break of the agreement have to be preceded by a change in agreement amongst all? That would allow telekinesis only if the rules would allow it (i.e. the agreed upon changes in reality on let’s say quantum level). Simply postulating objects to levitate would not occur if it would break common reality rules. A theory to discuss?
“Simply postulating objects to levitate would not occur if it would break common reality rules. A theory to discuss?”
Interesting.
Looking at past evidence this would seem to be invalidated and validated at the same time depending on your viewpoint(irony,no?) 🙂
Reading stories of people who were on the Sea Project with Ron,it seems that either mass agreement amongst groups of slowly self liberating beings can in itself spark sporadic OT phenomena,AND/OR the newly freed thetantual “space” of beings from newly released charge(in the Sea Project’s case GPM,R6,and OT3 research) can bring along OT phenomena.Though admittedly the opposite more than the Former tends to happen,such as at St.Hill during the same GPM research what with sheer Out-Admin and the like.
Sorry for rambling 😉
Thanks,
Chris,
The theory does not invalidate telekinesis per se as any telekinesis conforming to the agreed upon rules would implicitly be allowed. Pure postulating of levitation/telekinesis would on the other hand need agreement by all free wills involved in the game – an insurmountable task.
I’m not sure telekinetic powers would be such a good thing…
I should clarify that. I was thinking along the lines of people being able to steal things with no fingerprints left behind, etc. But I’m pretty sure that your thinking would be along the lines…”well, if we all got the the point where we were able to change the laws of quantum mechanics then we would all have to have gone through intense Scientology auditing anyways, so we’d be ethically beyond reproach and nobody would steal anything anyways.”
I wouldn’t stop people from having arms just because they could be used to steal things.
I think its very hopeful to think an O.T. will be a beneficent, all seeing, compassionate God-like immortal who will save the world or be an amazing magician providing stunning effects that we call all ooh and aah over. But maybe an immortal being capable of creating universes is simply not interested in good/bad, having perfect mind/body and magical demonstrations.
It also seems to me that so long as an O.T. is immersed in the paradigm of good/bad, things are good/bad. Beyond paradigms, if you don’t like your creation, create again. Working within the current world paradigm you can ask: can you really leave this world, this universe? Without, the question becomes: Leave what? Leave to where?
In my current paradigm: I am and no matter where I am, that’s where I am. I’ve traveled my body around the world on airplanes and when I get there, I am just there. Same there. I’ve run hundreds of hours of auditing, and always, I am. The mechanics flow around, constantly in a state of flux. Makes no difference to me.
BTW, this is my personal current paradigm. I am not quoting LRH materials.
It’s so unusual to be able to express these things. Thanks Geir.
p.s. speaking of magic, this is fun: http://dotsub.com/view/a9d3c6ba-4f7b-4e4b-87a8-ab77622511c4
Interesting viewpoint (your paradigm).
I find it wonderful.
Believe me,we ALL do.
Maria,
Ever heard the expression “No matter where you go, there you are”? (Confucius)
I also think that, if we ever get those OT-abilities, we still need a playground. So some kind of universe is necessary. Let’s just skip the suffering, the genocides, the murders and unjustice etc.
That’s why Hubbard has stated it so well: “A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights.”
That would be a pretty good living in itself.
Hi Hubbariane(…). I do not intent to be too critical on this board – it is important I feel, that the overall atmosphere remains positive. I can’t let this go though.
Did you actually READ the quote you provided, Hub?
After the genocide of the WWII, the UN issued the UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights. You know, the one the CoS likes to parade around with…
So tell me, please, what part of UNIVERSAL did you not get?
Your stoopid little Scientology-utopia is as dictorial and sinister as every other utopian world that has been previously dreamed up. I know you recoil at that thought, because I know you believe Scientology is inherently good and that you are well-meaning at heart. But UNIVERSAL rights are UNIVERSAL for ****’s sake. And I for one support the UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights.
Too bad you apparently don’t.
Do you also think I should be ‘disposed of quietly and without sorrow’ once you guys have taken over, Hub? Or can you still think for yourself instead of repeating Hubbard’s Orwellian fantasies?
(Geir, you’re more than welcome to delete this post, as I’ve said, this board needs to remain positive, but I just had to vent).
*presses submit comment and goes to bed*
It’s borderline – but not deleted. Watch the anger.
I know Geir, as I indicated in the post I realized I was being counterproductive more than anything.
But my grandfather mumbled about but two things in the last five years of his life after he became completely demented. One was how much he loved and missed his wife, who had passed away years before. The other was how much he hated the Nazi’s. Those were the two basic emotions that he had left after he became demented.
So if people go around stating that not everyone is entitled to basic human rights, it hits me on a very personal level and I can’t say I am too ashamed of showing anger.
Thanks for not deleting my enfuriated comment.
Dave,
I welcome the United Nations declaration of human rights as well. Everything that is good is good, it doesn’t have to be Scientology.
Do you mean that the UN Declaration of Human rights is good, but that Scientology’s declaration is not good? It’s just words. Who cares where they come from?
“Where honest beings can have right.” ? You do realize that criminals in our society actually are deprived of their rights when locked up in a prison? That is not just the Scientology way of dealing with criminals.
I think you misunderstand me. “So if people go around stating that not everyone is entitled to basic human rights”. Where do I state that?
Hubbard wrote and spoke 35 million words about Scientology, and you find like… 10-20, let’s say 100, stupid sentences (‘disposed of quietly and without sorrow’) out of that. Get a perspective. Please.
Hi Hubbardaine(.), Thanks for the response. I have no doubt you support the UN declaration of human rights, when asked directly.
I am fully aware my response was counterproductive, although I still feel I had to allow myself to vent. I’d like to try again, though:
Hi Hubbardianen,
You stated that you think that ‘only honest people should have rights’.
I am dishonest several times each day (at least scientific research tells I am probably am) so I have to admit that sounds pretty hyperbolic to me, and it’s even in what amounts to Scientologie’s mission statement… so I’m.
Can you please explain to me what you mean when you say that I should have no rights?
Thanks,
Dave.
Dave, (one of your posts is far up, there seems to something wrong with the post system, so I will put your question in here).
You wrote: “…only honest people having rights, sympathy being so low on the tone scale and ‘group’ having it’s own dynamic.”
It actually states: “where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights”. It DOES NOT say: “where ONLY honest people having rights”. This is a matter of interpretation the way I see it. I think Hubbard means that honest people should have MORE rights, just like in todays society. Criminals of today actually have less rights than honest people. 1. They are locked inside a cell. 2. They have restrictions. 3. They have to work for less than minimum wage. etc.
“sympathy being so low on the tone scale”. Hubbard writes in a certain way about sympathy. He means when a person pitys another person, like: “I feel so much sorrow for you, you have gone through such amount of pain”. Isn’t it better to help the person help himself, instead of just making him passive and feeling sorry for himself? Differentiate between (passive) sympathy and (active) help.
“‘group’ having it’s own dynamic”
I cannot see the problem of the eight dynamics and the group dynamic. It’s just a matter of dividing survival into several areas. First and foremost, I would say everybody think about themselves in the first place, second place, they think about their family, then probably their group… then mankind, animals etc etc.
The group could be anything from a football team to a company, it does not have to be connected to Scientology. It’s just a matter of talking about a group and their purposes: “You win as a team and you loose as a team”.
Fascinating conversation on Universal Human Rights. Are you aware that there is an official UN declaration and a separate and different declaration called the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights? It’s so easy to sit in judgment from a western (largely Christian based) thinking viewpoint, but that viewpoint shatters when you really study the religious beliefs and practices of the Eastern world, which comprises more than half of the world’s population. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
As far as “honest people have rights,” it does not say that dishonest people have no rights. I believe this refers to the over-protection of criminals in legal process. Here is info on the Victims’ Rights Amendment being adopted by some States, explaining the problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victims%27_Rights_Amendment
Dave, I gotta tell you. Your comment is amusing. Where do I state that I don’t support the UN’s declaration of human rights? Just because I don’t say A does not mean I don’t stand by A.
I suppose this is related to the topic. James Randi debunking yet another psychic, James Hydrick, at one point called the “number one psychic in America.” He fooled many scientists who failed to think up such an easy explanation..
Link to Youtube video
Jeez, I didn’t realize it would post the whole video in here…sorry.
I fixed the link so that it became external.
Debunking fraudulent “psychic” doesn’t prove much of any big picture, though…
I know. Still, I think that the fact that nobody has passed James Randi’s million dollar (US$) challenge to exhibit verifiable paranormal/psychic activity, which has been around for decades, is rather telling. Most “psychics” when asked about the Randi Foundation challenge try to change the topic, though a few have tried and failed.
ExKane,
Perhaps that just shows how far down we have gone? Time for “Revenge of the OT:s”. 😉
Hmm…Revenge of the OTs. Yes…I smell a Hollywood hit. 🙂
Maybe Tom Cruise should star in it 🙂
Geir, sorry to repost 293, but when I leave a general comment, it often is not inserted at the end, but randomly below earlier comments far back where no one will see the new post). Apparently the way to get it as the end, is to reply the very last comment. The reply will then be inserted as a new comment at the very end (and not as a reply).
I know – I’m looking for a better way of handling this. A new forum, perhaps?
(The text of 293, can be found 269 above)
@Geir:
I appreciate that you like it short :-).
Sometimes, though, you just need make sure the concept is fully communicated. I guess that you would prefer a link to a blog or similar if you have more on your mind than what can be expressed in a few sentences. However, I don’t have any experience with blogs or webpages, and no wish to use time on it. Hope, that you can give a bit of leeway. Will try to restrain myself.
If you exercise your shortening skills, I will exercise my leeway muscle (that’s difficult). Deal?
PS: This is no carte blanche for anybody to post long comments. This is between me and Elgin (and anybody entering similar deals) 😉
Ok!
I kind of like the simpleness, setup and colors of the present forum, so its not that big of an issue yet but perhaps will be later on if traffic increases a lot.
(Sorry for reposting this, but it ends up under the wrong comment.)
As for James Randi, I have to admire his efforts at finding rational explanations and debunking fraudulent psychics. At the same time, however, I do believe that there are the “real deal” psychics, although perhaps perhaps only 5-10% (just an estimate) of the those claiming to have special powers, in fact, do have them. Of these 5-10% quite a number have actually participated in scientific experiments.
I can mention Joe McMoneagle as a good example. He was part of the remote viewer program (Stargate) run at Stanford which was scientifically evaluated. One of the scientists professor in Statistics at University of California Jessica Utts found significant evidence for paranormal functioning, and she stands by it.
Her homepage: http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/
Look under the heading “Parapsychology Links” to see more links about her work.
As a side note I can recommend a couple of good books about the Stargate program (real page turners despite the pop titles :):
Joe McMoneagle: Memoirs of a Psychic Spy
David Morehouse: Psychic Warrior
Yes I’ve been aware of the program at Stanford. I think these scientists were misled in a similar fashion as Uri Geller mislead Stanford’s Harold Puthoff.
If you want to be above speculation, you should not speculate 😉
The original scientists had dealings with Uri Geller, and possibly was misled, but several other psychics and scientists were connected with the program over the 20 years it lasted. The two scientists that I am referring to did an after the program evaluation. One of them Ray Hyman is a very skeptic thinker (like James Randi). But even he had to agree that there was significant statistic deviation which could not be explained by the null theory (i.e. that the result happened by random chance). Jessica Utts was not as such connected with parapsychology, but were asked to evaluate the program on a strictly scientific basis in her capacity as a statistician together with Ray Hyman.
(reply to 273 above)
Hi Alex,
Exactly! That is also why I think that it is such a good idea to get Scientologists to just look at what is there — an ability we take pride in training.
Almost automatically, the typical Scientologist will immediately reject negative statements on web pages and in the media without even looking because over the years they have seen so much biased coverage (the positive that do happen with training and auditing always being ignored). However, in this case where the situation at Int is real, they need to get over that and just look, and I think the best way of accomplishing that is for each of us to point it out to family and close friends that trust us — have them read and watch the videos. They can then make their own conclusions. Enough people (on the inside and outside) understanding the situation will give an accumulating push towards its handling in one way or another.
ARC, Elgin
Hi Elgin,
I have been doing this to mixed results. I have had a few people cog and I am nurturing them along. I had one person look at the truth Rundown data and he said “what a bunch of victims!” I feel that so many Scientologists have been “indoctrinated” to think certain ways. Scientology good, critical comments bad. Very black and white. I think that Scientologists (or a lot of them) have lost the ability to “think for themselves” which IS what I think LRH wanted to achieve. We are on an abberated planet and I don’t think it is easy to get anyone to see the truth. You just have to keep working on them at the gradient they can handle.
Alex, Hub, Maria, I replied but the response gets placed at around 293 above… Hope this one get placed correctly 🙂
Geir (or anyone that cares to answer),
What do you think of the GAoT? Did you use it in your auditing? Did you use the tech before the GAoT? Does it still work? Should one use the GAoT or the tech before that?
I had good wins with GAT – especially on OT VI. I had no problem making it my own (i.e. not going robotic with it). However, I can see how GAT could robotize an otherwise natural auditor.
Hi Geir and Hubbardiane,
There are some times bad criticism of GAT. I haven’t done any GAT courses, but I have received auditing from GAT auditors, and they seemed okay to me. When I speak to others, they also have good results with GAT. Perhaps some time a poll strictly for those who have ACTUALLY done the GAT courses or received auditing from GAT trained auditors could be in order. I feel that there is a bit of myth going around about how bad GAT is.
I have noticed that Joe Howard, does not necessarily see the GAT as bat and states that it can have some basis in a lecture from Ron about basics of a qual.
Perhaps the drilling can be considered a help to serve you as foundation, so that one can more easily focus on the Pc, meter, etc. rather than something intended to make you into a robot. Expert dancers and other performers also do a lot of continual drilling on the basics of their trade. It’s a balance of course.
I believe that the problems of differentiation comes into play – critics tend to criticize whatever new comes along, GAT included. I believe the ideas behind GAT are sometimes valuable. I think it also may robotize people. GAT + intelligence + personal integrity would be fine.
Hi Alex,
Yeah, I know what you mean. I think one has to carefully evaluate who one might want to “enlighten”. Also, I think some people are just more interesting in getting up the bridge. As long as they can go on with their service, are having gains and don’t run into any trouble, they are not really interested.
Don’t think that LRH wanted robots. There are too many books and lectures that I have studied over the years which doesn’t fit that intention. Auditing and training in my experience does not take away one’s ability to think for oneself. But being in the group for long where one is given the official stand on everything Scientology may lead to an inability to evaluate the subject and the orgs behind it — like other groups that someone is very close to.
The gradient scale is what works for me too in “enlightening”.
Hi Alex,
Yeah, I know what you mean. I think one has to carefully evaluate who one might want to “enlighten”. Also, I think some people are just more interesting in getting up the bridge. As long as they can go on with their service, are having gains and don’t run into any trouble, they are not really interested.
Don’t think that LRH wanted robots. There are too many books and lectures that I have studied over the years which doesn’t fit that intention. Auditing and training in my experience does not take away one’s ability to think for oneself. But being in the group for long where one is given the official stand on everything Scientology may lead to an inability to evaluate the subject and the orgs behind it — like other groups that someone is very close to.
The gradient scale is what works for me too in “enlightening”.
Hi Elgin,
Yes I agree that the group think is detrimental to independent observation. I guess that is what LRH talks about with group bank. I really hope the COS can get past the enforcing of ideas game. It gets very old and is not fun.
ARC,
Alex
Then you will like this quotation:
Then you will like this quotation from Executive Series 33. I don’t know if it was included in the latest reissue of the Management Series but it was in the original issues.
“To lay down a big plan for Scientologists and say, ‘This is the organization and this is what we are going to do: steps one, two, three . . .’ is saying that none of you have a right to think or plan.
The only thing we can do inside Scientology is hold the communication lines of Scientology and its service in an orderly state. And we can keep the show on the road. But this is an inside perimeter.”
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 MARCH 1981 LEADERSHIP – MORE ABOUT
(Taken from tape lecture 5901CO4 of 4 January 1959 titled “Leadership.”)
Great quote.
Geir or anybody,
Have you read anywhere what LRH says about the creation of MEST? Does Hubbard support the Big Bang theory? Has he written anywhere about this?
Nothing substantial that I have read. The Factors is the closest I have seen.
Geir.
What do you think of the space opera in Scientology? Like Marcabians, Helatrobus, invader forces etc? Any evidence for that?
Great quote.
I didn’t find it in the new Mgmt Series or on the OEC’s.
ARC,
Alex
Your vision of it is wonderful.
Your personal current paradigm is beautiful.
It’s liberator and it gives space for a lot to happen.
Of course, it’s a matter of degree. I wouldn’t want to exist in a world where anyone can destroy any and all incriminating evidence against them just by “postulating it to be gone.”
Hey! No CIs here! I want to be able to get my perfect cup of tea without leaving the coach in the middle of the soccer game 😉
I believe a thetan can move physical objects without a body, but I have no proof of it.
Some thoughts:
I think it’s a matter of postulate and mechanics, as simple as that.
Going into mechanics:
Perhaps it’s a matter of creating sub-pressure, like when an airplane lifts. That is, using MEST (air) to move MEST.
In vaccum though, perhaps acting like a magnet on materia, something not yet discovered.
*laughs* I realize I’m getting into ad-hoc theories…
Let’s just do up to OT XV and do some experiments… 🙂
Good theory but it would require energy to create the vacuum.
It may be that you are trying to explain phenomena that exist outside a realm by the means and tools from within. Outside the box is outside the box.
Your survey question really put my itsa line in. One of the major outpoints with the COS is that you cannot openly communicate your ideas if they do not fit the “mold”. If you are critical about what goes on then you are shut down. If you don’t like some policy then you have MU’s or out-ethics. If you want to create a good life for yourself then you are “middle class PTS” or a dilletante. There seems to be a way of cutting your comm or invvlidating whatever you may want to do if it doesn’t align with what the COS (or DM I know now) wants. Because of all this comm cutting and inval it has driven me away and lowered my ARC. Some would say it is because now I have overts. This too becomes tiresome as an explanation especially since I have had tons of sec checking and FPRD. The net result is that the COS has become just NOT FUN. It has become a “deadly serious” activity that really sucks. LRH talks about the spirit of play. Well I say that has all but disappeared and in its place is a phony manic “tone 40” that makes me sick!! Well I guess that about says it. I would rather listen to a “declared SP” who makes sense then robots telling me to do things that make no sense to me.
Question: If you were running the COS what would you do to revert the situation?
First; Great post. Good explanation. I think many Scientologists in good standing would agree with you.
What would I do? I would revert the church to this. I would issue a general amnesty for all. Get people back on board and get the FUN right back in. I would weed out any and all out-tech, review all policies that are not in alignment with current laws of the land, current technology and that are not supportive of tech delivery and of creating positive effects on the society. I would get ethics back to being a personal matter.
Sounds great! Sign me up!!
The general amnesty is something I keep thinking of.
Talking about listening to a declared SP…
I recently started thinking that what if all those who were declared suppressives and declared “really eeevil” by the COS ages ago actaully weren’t so bad?
And to test my theory, I started to look into the worst that I could remember: David Mayo.
The result? I really love to listen to his short talks on the importance on standard tech and not confusing ethics with justice. For instance, Mayo says that you simply cannot “put someone’s ethics in” as many say these days in COS. Ethics is personal, it is what one does on a personal level.
Listen to the evil beast Mayo, and you’ll see that if Mayo had been allowed to run the church, we would have been a lot closer to the ideal scene.
Hi Smesa,
I read David Mayo’s debrief off of a freezone link. He seemed like a real good guy. Audited LRH through Nots and helped in a lot of research. LRH appointed him Senior C/S Int for life per the data I have read. if you take into consideration a persons good as well as their bad you get the answer about a person being an SP or not. I have been told that LRH made mistakes, such as putting an SP ( David Mayo ) on as Senior C/S. This to me is black PR on LRH. Do you really think LRH, the person who developed the PTS/SP tech would put a real SP onto the highest tech post on the planet and let him audit him on NOTs??? I think not!
IMHO there is no tomorrow where we will someday gain the ability to manipulate via quantum mechanics. We already do. We already live in the now, and its result. Telekinesis, extra-sensory perceptions, exteriorization, OT abilities, all these things are already in operation. Like it or not, you are here and now. The question is, what to create? Consider this experiment: http://istpp.org/crime_prevention/.
Goodie 🙂
ExKane,
Regarding telekinetic powers. I as a thetan (nothingness in MEST) move my body, that would be inconsistent with the conservation of energy law. How do you explain that?
If I can control my body, I should be able to control something else MEST-wise. Yes, a cup doesn’t have nerves and muscles, so that would be control of MEST on a higher level.
(Geir, this post is a double post, for some reason the other ended up at the wrong place. I hope this ends up at a better place.)
ExKane,
Regarding telekinetic powers. I as a thetan (nothingness in MEST) move my body, that would be inconsistent with the conservation of energy law. How do you explain that?
If I can control my body, I should be able to control something else MEST-wise. Yes, a cup doesn’t have nerves and muscles, so that would be control of MEST on a higher level.
ExKane,
Perhaps the telekinetic stuff requires a high level of ethics like you state. And perhaps the PC gets more ethical as he progress up the bridge, up to a piont where he actually is ethical. And then the OT-levels for telekinetic powers are released? Hard to tell what’s in the upper OT-levels.
Maria,
Ever heard the expression “No matter where you go, there you are”? (Confucius)
I also think that, if we ever get those OT-abilities, we still need a playground. So some kind of universe is necessary. Let’s just skip the suffering, the genocides, the murders and unjustice etc.
That’s why Hubbard has stated it so well: “A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights.”
That would be a pretty good living in itself.
@Jim Logan:
Hi Jim!
I read your comments (& loved them), in one you mention a reference.
Where could I find that reference “HCOPL 24 February 1964 – Urgent – Org Programming”?
FWIW I searched in OECv0 and Mgt Series v1..v3 w/o luck. I think it’s very important/useful data.
BTW I find this drills _very_ useful (and funny 🙂
A Scientologist’s Golden Age of Integrity Drills: http://bit.ly/gAmOc
Hubbardianen,
Yes, I’ve heard it. I always thought it was one of those pithy sayings like “Confucius say…” until one day I realized that I was living it… Playgrounds, friends, creativity, its all good! I guess what I didn’t add is we don’t have to wait for tomorrow, wait until all the craziness is handled, just start creating now. It looks to me like this is already happening. I’m glad.
Geir, do you think there really is such a thing as an SP as LRH described it?
Yes. There are notable examples in history; Hitler, Stalin…
Hi Geir an or whoever may have data on this question. I have been on Solo Nots and have signed pages of legal documents everytime I went to Flag. I really had no idea what I was signing. (general idea not in detail) If I leave the Church is there any limits as what I can say about my experiences (I would never disclose confidential stuff) while on OT7 or in Scientology and is it realistic to think that the COS would come after me financially? I mean have you heard of an ex Scio being sewed for damages for talking about their experiences? This is one of the last shreds of PTSness that I have on my lines and I need to get at cause over it.
Alex
I believe there is no way that the church could or would go after you if you talked about your experiences.
I read on another posting where OSA threatened to apply and did apply “critics of Scientology” reference who was posting on the internet. OSA went around to her job etc, etc. have you heardof this kind of thing and is this happening to you?
I have several people contacting me that has similar stories. They seem to be rather ineffective in their harassment, though. This has not happened to me – except for the ambush meeting I mentioned earlier 🙂
Hi guys,
This is an interesting Discussion. Scientology hasn’t yet been applied to sciences, but I’ve the feeling that in a not distant future that will happen and it will change our perspectives of the world and universes ! As a young boy I wanted to study quantum physics but changed my mind and signed up to clear the planet. Today I’ve a loss about it. But the condition of OT really exits and some harmonics of it, but it never was the intention of scientology to do funny tricks. All this stuff about telekinesis, teleportation etc…are real. I think everybody had once an OT Phenomena in his life, but why prove it ? You know it for yourself and others also. Don’t invalidate it and don’t invalidate others about their power of mind. My biggest realisation in Scientology is that I’m a spiritual being and have lived lots of lifes, but as soon I’m talking about it, people want to see proofs of it, even when I give it to them they invalidate it. This is the main problem of this planet; invalidate spiritual beings. Randi himself should honestly try it out himself what he is, where he comes from and where he’ll be. I can prove to anybody of you that your memories of this life time are wrong and that you haven’t been at the places you say. This by just invalidating any proof you give to me. Photos are no proof. Souvenirs can be bought anywhere, papers and certificates can be made up, people telling that it is true can be bought or are delusionnal etc. ad infinitum…The only proof you have is your knowingness. How can you show me your knowingness as a piece of mest I can look at and measure, you can’t, so I can prove to you that your lifetime is just your own imagination !!!
Welcome on Planet Earth !
As for James Randi, I have to admire his efforts at finding rational explanations and debunking fraudulent psychics. At the same time, however, I do believe that there are the “real deal” psychics, although perhaps perhaps only 5-10% (just an estimate) of the those claiming to have special powers, in fact, do have them. Of these 5-10% quite a number have actually participated in scientific experiments.
I can mention Joe McMoneagle as a good example. He was part of the remote viewer program (Stargate) run at Stanford which was scientifically evaluated. One of the scientists professor in Statistics at University of California Jessica Utts found significant evidence for paranormal functioning, and she stands by it.
Her homepage: http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/
Look under the heading “Parapsychology Links” to see more links about her work.
As a side note I can recommend a couple of good books about the Stargate program:
Joe McMoneagle: Memoirs of a Psychic Spy
David Morehouse: Psychic Warrior
I know — the titles are a bit pop but they are very good books, real page turners. Especially Joe McMoneagle are very for applying scientific principles. He is Ok with as long as the scientists are not fanatically biased against the paranormal up front.
I believe that over time enough evidence and research will accrue that such phenomenon will be generally and scientifically accepted.
Shorter!
As for James Randi, I have to admire his efforts at finding rational explanations and debunking fraudulent psychics. At the same time, however, I do believe that there are the “real deal” psychics, although perhaps perhaps only 5-10% (just an estimate) of the those claiming to have special powers, in fact, do have them. Of these 5-10% quite a number have actually participated in scientific experiments.
I can mention Joe McMoneagle as a good example. He was part of the remote viewer program (Stargate) run at Stanford which was scientifically evaluated. One of the scientists professor in Statistics at University of California Jessica Utts found significant evidence for paranormal functioning, and she stands by it.
Her homepage: http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/
Look under the heading “Parapsychology Links” to see more links about her work.
As a side note I can recommend a couple of good books about the Stargate program:
Joe McMoneagle: Memoirs of a Psychic Spy
David Morehouse: Psychic Warrior
I know — the titles are a bit pop but they are very good books, real page turners. Especially Joe McMoneagle are very for applying scientific principles as long as the scientists are not fanatically biased against the paranormal up front.
I believe that over time enough evidence and research will accrue that such phenomenon will be generally and scientifically accepted.
Sorry, comment 258 and 259 was entered wrongly as I am new to the forum. The comment has now been posted as 279 as a reply to exkanes 277. Perhaps Geir can remove 258 and 259.
I was given a copy of a program issued to OT Ambassadors dated 26 June 2009 that says in one of the targets: “As part of your activities, make it widely known and understood with the rest of the field that EVERYONE is ON THE ORG BOARD of your Central Org.” The program is authored by WDC FOR IDEAL ORGS. (The caps were on the issue)
It seems to me that if this is so, then everyone is subject to direct orders from staff in the Church of Scientology and are, in effect, staff members, and therefore there are no public Scientologists.
Is there anything in writing from L. Ron Hubbard that supports this statement? I am trying to find out if this is staff generated or based on direct orders or policy from LRH himself.
I have seen this pushed for years in the church. Walter Kotric (CO CLO EU) once said that the command rank was as follows: Sea Org orders Class V Orgs who in turn orders public. He has been pushing this agenda for quite some time. I am sure it did not originate from him – as you now see in the OTA program. I believe there are LRH issues twisted to suit this line as LRH would want the orgs to take full responsibility for their field and the society in which they are located. But bossing everyone around… nah. There may be others with exact LRH references here. Someone?
Hi Geir, sorry about the order in which my latest comment/question appeared. I can’t seem to get my comments to appear at the bottom instead of in the middle of other comment threads.
I know – the comment section on WP is below par. I am considering hosting a real forum where discussions can more easily flow…
Hi Alex and Geir,
I think that some can be done on the inside and some on the outside. For those on the inside, I think that open communication of the severe outpoints will go a long way. The reason that no protests have been coming forth earlier is, perhaps, that no one really had any idea about how gross the transgressions was — at least amongst the public, Org staff and possibly even SO below the int level. When I first read about the abuse and oppression I just couldn’t believe it. It was simply too much. However, after reading several accounts I came to painful conclusion that these events did in fact happen.
I believe that a first step in changing this, is just making Scientologists aware of what has been going on. Accounts like Jeff Hawkins’ will go a long way in accomplishing this. Although I might not agree with his conclusion not to do any Scientology anymore, I can appreciate the candidness of his story. As a personal account it is what it is — I can subtract and add here and there as needed, but by and large I find it a very matter of fact account, and there are others. For lesser issues I can accept that some things are better kept and corrected “in house”. As for what has been going on here, it so violates the basic idea of Scientology and common decency that communication needs to be open about it. That might just lead to handling — also on the inside.
I was just going over The Way to Happiness and I find that by just following that and insisting whatever other policies and directives there are, that they do not violate the precepts of just that book we would come a long way.
ARC, Elgin
Good post.
But;
The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.
– Thomas Jefferson
Hi Elgin,
Good points. I think it is harder to get the handling done from the inside when you have an SP that is creating havoc. The out-points are gross and glaring, does it really take a genius to figure this out? If you were running the COS what would you do to handle the situation? Keep in mind you have 750 million in reserves too!
ARC,
Alex
(See reply at 314 below as the text is just too narrow here)
Sure thing!
Hi Geir,
I have heard a rumor that the Org’s will have to pay rent to the COS for the new buildings, even after funding. Have you heard or can you confirm this??
ARC,
Alex
I have heard it both ways (that they will pay rent and that the will not pay rent. It varies with whom I ask. Maybe someone here could confirm which way it actually is. How is Tampa, Buffalo, JoBurg, London etc. as regards to paying rent?
Geir,why the hell did my new comment appear ALL THE WAY up here? 😦
I think Word Press is being paid off by the psyches,the CIA,OSA or something,cause this is starting to get ridiculous.
I know, I know ;-(
Geir you wouldn’t happen to have any reality as to how many many Active CO$ Scientologists there are in the world today would you?
How about before the fascists and the Asthmatic Dwarf took over?
How about 1986,1990,or even when Tom Cruise showed the world what the EP of a a GAT trained auditing session when he psychotically defiled Oprah’s Couch? 🙂
Thanks,
Chris.
My guesstimate on current active scientologists is maybe 70000. I guess it was more than 10 times that at its peak.
Hey Geir,
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Scientology-1751/
You wouldn’t mind if you or someone on the Dream Team would volunteer some time to become experts on that website.
Ironically enough it’s one the few websites on the Internet with an active questioning CO$ Public and “Answerers”.
Dissemination be damned,just appearing once on that site would probably rile up some Upper Management feathers!!!(which would be a virtue in itself admitedly) 😉
Again my comments are sporadically moving around the blog for no reason.
Oh joy.
Hi Geir, After experiencing a lot of “crush” regging first hand, it became my viewpoint that the church in fact needed to do that to survive as it is. I don’t mean that as justification but simply that the whole thing has become so large and expensive with income diminishing that they couldn’t operate large buildings around the world and a cruise ship without taking the measures they do. The whole thing operates on credit essentially, just not it’s own. Because of that I feel a “reformed” church – one that made it’s money by fair exchange – simply wouldn’t be able to maintain it’s current size by a long way to the point of making reform almost impossible. Do you agree or think they could maintain their current structure? I think a real reform would entail starting fresh and having small groups in rented office space like the old days and building from there.
I don’t agree that the crush sell is out of necessity. There are much larger corporations with more assets and much larger religions with still more assets that don not use anywhere near the force applied in the CoS. This aside, a build-up from the ground up may not be a bad idea anyway.
Hello,
I am just looking over the site for the first time. Somehow I got on an email list and it had a link that brought me here. Some questions have ocurred to me.
I see that you have specifically stated that you departed the Church of Scientology, but not Scientology. I also see that you are in favor of the expansion and use of Scientology technology, and that you are in favor of the gains that people can get from the application of Scientology technology. I am curious about how you propose that people obtain these gains (grades, clear, OT, etc.) outside of the church. I am particulary interested in not only the tech line but the qual line.
Thanks.
There are individuals and delivery units (with a full qual set-up etc.) out there that delivers the tech – and a few of them seem to deliver it a good bit more standardly than in the church today. One project that I am working on is to better facilitate the contacts between PCs/Pre-OTs and these delivery units. It may appear on a web site near you.
Actually, Hub, I’ve changed my mind. This is not the place to go into discussion with Scientologists, at least not the kind where you are you handling me and with me trolling you. So you are more than welcome to ignore my question. Sorry.
But I’d just wish Scientologists took a good hard look at the question of the effect certain tenets have, such as only honest people having rights, sympathy being so low on the tone scale and ‘group’ having it’s own dynamic. The hardship and us vs them mentatitily that is allowing Slappy to continue his abusive reigh, is ingrained by Hubbard in the Tech with these and other tenets. Removing Slappy will not remove that mentality, especially in the Sea Org. I’d really wish Scientologists would show a little bit of modesty, and try to understand how a hard-line critic sees Hubbard’s teachings contributing to the current situation. You know, it could give some valuable insights, that could help unravel the current mess the Church is in.
But, Dave, you promised yourself that you would not try and enforce this when you started posting here. Did you already forget that promise to yourself? Tsk, tsk.
Hi Dave,
I assume you are not a Scientologist? Well a lot of LRH’s policies need to be used with some judgement and from some one who is UP the tone scale. ( who is a positive person)
I am sure you see things wrongly applied in Scientology, so do a lot of Scientologists.
You don’t need to do way with Scientology just because some people mis-interpret it do you?
A lot of people mis-interpreted the Bible, should that be done away with too??
ARC,
Alex
Talking about James Randi. He wrote a little comment about Scientology “assists” in 2006 on his website and at the end said this :
”
Hey, I just had an inspiration! This Scientology “assist” notion can certainly be tested, easily. If a person can tell whether or not they’ve been “assisted,” in a simple double-blind test, that would qualify for the JREF prize. Will the Church of Scientology apply for the million dollars? No, I think not.
”
See http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-05/052606action.html
Anyone wants to take on his challenge? 🙂
I did not know that. From an optimum point of view I believe a Human Rights Declaration should be the same for everyone.
As far as talking to people who aren’t prone to go to a website like this, use down stats and policy violations. I tell people, “stats are the bottom line, and that’s why I can tell you these events and GAT are justified concerns. If DM was getting the show on the road, seen in stats, I wouldn’t speak up.”
Dave, when Ron says only honest beings should have rights, he means that if you so much as think an evil thought, you should have no right for all eternity thereafter. Does that clear it up?
Ron doesn’t say that only honest beings should have rights.
(long post alert, sorry)
Alex, do you think it is possible that Hubbard put mind control elements into Scientology as a kind of ultimate test for Scientologists? The ultimate test in free thinking would indeed be getting exposed to indoctrination tactices and be able to see through them…
I’d like to refer to the discussion with Hubbardiane(.) and Maria above. First, I want to say thanks to them for not handling me, it really means a lot that I’m being taken seriously enough for an actual discussion.
I am trying to argue that (simplified)
mind control = tricks with words and concepts + group think + propaganda.
If you read Orwell’s 1984 this is explained pretty well (incredible, even, if you consider he had no scientific research to build upon).
In my discussion, I took the newspeak example of ‘honest people having less/no rights’. Maria and Hubbarianen are explaining how this isn’t really so bad according to the official Scientology interpretation. But I believe Hubbard used this terminology with the intention to invoke the corresponding negative emotions. Basically, to link the emotion that dishonest people have no rights with an intellectual argumentation that this isn’t the case. A cognitive dissonance thus. Add group think and propaganda (pretty abundant in the Church, I think we can all agree) and the negative emotional charge surfaces and gets the upper hand, inevitably leading to an abusive environment (particularly in the Sea Org, insulated from normal society).
And I think Hubbard knew this very, very well. Hence, his 1984 reference in the Phillidelphia Doctorate Levels (basically saying, that Scientology is worse than 1984 when used by wrong intentioned people). Critics always argued Hubbard’s real intention was actually to create an abusive 1984-style society, but do you think my first suggestion might be the case?
Anyways, I don’t know if it can be done, but Scientologists need to become more aware the tech is basically boobytrapped. Otherwise, outing DM will have very little positive effect in the long run…
(also, going on holiday as per tomorrow, so I’ll have to leave the discussion unfortunately)
Interpreting “Only honest beings should have rights” from LRH’s sentence “…honest beings have rights” is beyond a stretch, it’s reading what you want to build an argument to foster a fixed idea.
Geir I don’t think Ron says that but it was sarcasm.
I need to fix my sarcasm filter.
No that’s fine Geir, You’re correct about that. I had typed it wrong not realizing. A separate point was that I was being sarcastic. Anyways I think it’s all cleared up now.
Geir,being a Norwegian you wouldn’t happen to know what snus is,do you?
I assume it’s a pastry cake or something but apparently much lulz is to be found regarding it,so I’m curious.
Snus is a substitute for cigarettes – it is a moist tobacco powder pressed to a lump an put under the lip.
I usually go through Google to get to this site if I don’t have it open in a tab already. Today I noticed it was at the top of the Google list when I typed “geir isene”! Yay! It used to be third or fourth down. =D
It’s getting traction 😉
Geir,do you think Ron will ever pick up a new body and relead the COS again?Or do you think he died before he achieved that level of determinism in the in between lives area?If so,what do you think we should do if it turns out a PC was Ron in a past life?Cause….
Thanks,
Chris.
I don’t have an answer (even for myself) on this.
Geir do you think Ron will ever come back to relead the COS if at all?Or do you think he dropped the body before he was able to reach that level of self determinism?
If so,what do you think should be done with a PC who keeps on originating that he or she is L.Ron Hubbard?Eventually something like that is bound to happen.
Thanks,
Chris.
One runs whatever the PC originates. And yes, we are bound to see those things – real or unreal (most would be the latter).
Oh lard Firefox,has been acting like crap again!
Surprise Surprise…
Geir would you mind if you did a commentary or a post on the IAS’s recent 25th Anniversary?
That or a link to it would be nice too.
I’ll see what I can dig up.
Geir
I agree with your idea of “open sourcing scientology”.
It aligns with an LRH reference I read years ago, which I will attempt to find.
I noticed someone is putting audio files of LRH taped lectures on the internet. It would be good if the transcripts of those lectures are also available, so one could search for a subject or phrase.
Do you know whether this has been done?
I think there are many focusing on releasing the tech. The tape project is great. Transcripts are further away, I think.
Regarding orgs paying for rent after paying for the building, I have it on a good source (an org ED) that they don’t pay rent after the building is paid for.
It is a stretch interpreting from this sentence alone, but taking into account what else Hubbard said about this topic makes it clear what he meant:
That dishonest and unable (i.e. aberrated) people shouldn’t be given the same rights as honest and able people.
See: Link to video
“Perhaps at some distant date only the unaberrated person will be granted civil rights before law. Perhaps the goal will be reached at some future time when only the unaberrated person can attain to and benefit from citizenship. These are desirable goals.”
Dianetics: TMSMH
As well as several passages in “Science of Survival” where Hubbard made it very clear, that people below 2.0 on the tone scale shouldn’t have civil rights.
Much better than reading something into a sentence that isn’t there.
RJ on Marty’s blog confirmed my own intuitions about GAT making less auditors, which is WRONG direction. I’ll repost it here, don’t know how to link to a specific comment yet. And hey this is general comments, anything goes right? 🙂
“Well I’ll tell you this StarsAwait. I did a full stat analysis of the ASHO Auditor Mag from the mid-80’s which is when I graduated from the BC to around 2002.
On an average they were making 5 to 12 Class VIs per Auditor issue, those reported in the completions with a highest ever in 92 of 26 Class VIs made when Chris Montgomery was the D of T Fdn (funny thing was they declared Chris SP and removed her from post after this, go figure) and after that it leveled out to about 5 to 6, until the Golden Age of Tech was released (you know the “new tech” Miscavige developed that was a suppossed to make an “army of auditors”) at which point the stat flat lines and goes on life support averaging 0 for several issues then it finally “recovers” to its “peak” of about 2 or 3, sometimes 4 Saint Hill grads.
Now I haven’t checked the stats since but I’ve read that ALL auditor trainees are now being routed off their training and forced to do the “Basics” before continuing with their auditor training! Despite the fact that the basic books are covered on the Levels and SH!
It is even more dismal for Class VIII. I believe that there has only been at total of 5 Class VIIIs made since GAT! Count ‘em baby 5!
What Miscavige has done has cut out the incentive for doing VIII. Before per Policy you could coaudit OT IV.
Not any more!
Because Miscavige has arbitrarily restricted the delivery of OT auditing to the SO in an effort to maintain the security of the advanced levels!
We can see how well that worked! (’scuse me while I download a LDN OT III and a couple of L7s off my favorite website here)
Not only that but any candidate who wants to do Class VIII now has to receive a full eligibility much like the one done before one can do the OT levels meaning he or she has to pay for it. Because delivering eligibility has now been restricted to SO!
Meaning even if you are a crack interned Class VI who has delivered thousands of hours of auditing and therefore are trained in the procedures required for what is called “eligibility” which is basically FPRD, you are no longer allowed to coaudit it and must now receive it in the HGC , just like any other schmuck.
Not only that! But since you haven’t officially started the Class VIII course, since they don’t know if you’re moral enough to audit people, you have to pay full rates for this arbitrary!
“Abitraries Canceled”. Sure, sure.
Any way this so called “Army of Auditors” is really turning into Sgt. Fury’s Ghost Battalion because most people don’t want to jump through all those hoops. Miscavige has basically made “training” a torturous and arduous ordeal that most people avoid now, because it has become such a long runway!
Besides now with the “New” Grades auditing has become much faster, now. At least this is what you continually read in “Source Mag”. So why bother getting trained?
In RED 107 Int Orders For Immediate Compliance, Ron says: (begin fair use quote)
“Courses should be fast, auditing drawn out. This is the exact reverse to what has been happening. SLOW COURSES AND FAST AUDITING DESTROY THE SUBJECTS OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY(my emphasis added). Fast courses and long long hours of auditing are the route to real gains and solvency.”
(end of fair use quote)
This was written back in 1970 when a quickie trend in Scientology had almost wiped out the subject. Seems Davy is about to repeat history.”
Hi Geir,
I wanted to ask you what wins or gains that you have had since leaving the COS. This is in regards to stats of that group of people who have left the COS. This is part of my doubt formula, so anyone else who reads this who has left the COS intentionally if you could let me know how it has affected your life that would be great.
ARC,
Alex
I have had a couple of life-changing OT realizations. They deserve their own blog posts. One is about Adventure, the other is about the makeup of the physical universe and why demonstrations of OT powers are hard to come by. But then there is the very day-to-day win of strongly enforced personal integrity – I fell much more unshakable. My business is going very well (despite the current economic climate). It’s only been 2,5 months…
Thanks Geir, that’s great!!
I don’t suppose you want to recant and make up the damage to the COS? It’s not too late.
🙂
Alex
Cool joke 😉
I can’t log onto this site from Marty’s for past several hours.
Well… ok?
Geir I assume you’re into xc skiing?
Nope. Opening presents.
Geir, you suggested that we propose controversial issues for future post topics – how about Hubbard’s stance on homosexuality? I’ve always been curious how Scientologists react to the things that he says regarding homosexuality. Clearly the cultural attitudes towards homosexuality have changed since Hubbard’s time (and for the better, in my opinion) so I’m curious if his statements have less sway with Scientologists than they would have, say, forty years ago.
Good proposal. I am curious myself as to other Scientologist’s view on both homosexuality and LRH’s statements about homosexuals.
I for one,am of the opinion that Ron was fine with gay people.
Just look at “Sea Org Second Dynamic rules canceled”(incidentally around the same time Ron was researching R6)
Even Science of Survival(or was it Handbook for Preclears?) said that OVERT homosexuality NOT just homosexuality was an aberration.
Add that the “World’s First Real Clear” and Quentin Hubbard a Class 12 and Ron’s son were both gay,and the facts just seem to pile on in my opinion.
Shoot,even the ole Thelemic bastard Aleister Crowley was bisexual.That’s just damning evidence right there,that Ron was fine with gay people
So being overtly homosexual was an aberration in his eyes? And you see that as being fine with gay people?
Why then does Hubbard claim that homosexuality is a form of sexual perversion, or that homosexuals are “actually quite ill physically”?
And I’m not sure Hubbard was so accepting of his son since he didn’t seem to feel too bad at his suicide, screaming “That stupid f*cking kid! Look what he’s done to me!”
In my opinion being overtly homosexual is just as abberative as being overtly HETEROsexual.
Overt in the context of what Ron said could probably be paraphrased to mean “flamboyant” today.
“Why then does Hubbard claim that homosexuality is a form of sexual perversion, or that homosexuals are “actually quite ill physically”?”
The PL,I referenced makes this irrelevant.Besides,the time period alone atones for this.
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves after all.
And judging from the quote above, Hubbard seemed to know something that we didn’t regarding the suicide.Best not to tread on things that we’ll probably never know about till the fascist gets booted.
Today while reading the Huffington Post I was shocked to see that even Ariana Huffington took notice of Tommy Davis’s poor communication skills(did he ever seriously do a comm course?)
[link removed due to reference to confidential material[
Though it’s nice to see that the new media has taken notice of this(all thanks to the recent defectors such as geir of course) I can’t help but roll my eyes at the blatant falsehoods in their article on you guys.
Funny,I didn’t realize you guys were “ex scientologists”.Can Marty or even you please tell the Post that we still recognize the validity of the tech and clarify the differences between Ron’s Scientology and Miscavology?The new Media needs to be informed on our “fight”.
Though in Tommy’s defense,if some random reporter who was probably laughing behind his back at the stupid [snip] scientologists kept on asking about the OT3 political details/story;even after being warned 3 times that doing so was condescending and offensive,I’d probably storm out too.
Sometimes you HAVE to play hardball with the press.
Still,there was a nice Freudian slip in the full interview by Tommy that really showed a lot about the decay in the CO$.
The reporter had asked him about the dog dressed by DM in Sea Org command stripes who’s barking allegedly marked “out-ethics” in people(DM’s words not mine).
When confronted by this Tommy then said”I don’t know,maybe we should bring the dog here in with us to see if it barks at you”.
This coming from the guy whose hat it is to develop better relations with the media!!!
Also, the dog (Chelsea) is dead …
I agree. I am actually of the opinion that this part of the interview was where Tommy did his best. What else could he do?
Agreed.
Unfortunately, that part of the interview you refer to contains reference to confidential material, hence link removed.
Geir, do you agree that some of Hubbard’s ideas contributed to an overly simplistic, us-them type of mentality? He said some things that directly indicate he felt as such.
Yes.
Anybody else getting tired of the media blatantly lying that anybody who rightfully leaves the CO$ is leaving the SUBJECT of scientology?
I recently read Marty’s article here http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/paul-haggis/ regarding the news of Paul Haggis going global.
EVERY SINGLE PRESS PAGE THINKS PAUL HAGGIS IS NO LONGER A SCIENTOLOGIST.
One page even thinks Jason and Marty are no longer scientologists(facepalm)
Geir,would you mind if you made a new post for the community to discuss how to remove this paradigm in the media?Dissemination would go ““straight up and vertical”(pun on Tommy Davis here) for the freezone and independants if only the media wasn’t this ridiculously lazy 😦
The problem with that media angle is that it plays right into the hands of OSA: “See, he publicly departed Scientology.! He is an anti-scientologist, and you all know what characteristics you can expect!”
Geir,
What do you think of the space opera in Scientology? Like Marcabians, Helatrobus, invader forces etc? Any evidence for that?
WOIM-list, logic breakdown:
[? Free will] Free will is not part of MEST
Free will has always been
Most any scenario is possible
IMPLIES: Space opera is close to inevitable
Regarding: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_en_ot/us_people_paul_haggis
::: Davis again disagreed with Haggis and said the church doesn’t mandate disconnection with anybody and that it was an entirely “self-determined decision.” :::
This is true. One can decide if disconnects or not. Ethics is self-determined and not mandatory, but if you do not put in ethics by self than the group puts in and then comes justice and declaration if you do not disconnect. But of course it is not mandatory to disconnect.
Basically Tommy’s words are 100% true.
😉
I wanted to put this to the end… it seems it went to the wrong place…
Yes, if I point a gun to your head asking for your money, you still have a self determined choice if you want to give it to me or not. Would it be called a forced choice, though?
Regarding: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_en_ot/us_people_paul_haggis
:::
Davis again disagreed with Haggis and said the church doesn’t mandate disconnection with anybody and that it was an entirely “self-determined decision.”
:::
This is true. One can decide if disconnects or not. Ethics is self-determined and not mandatory, but if you do not put in ethics by self than the group puts in and then comes justice and declaration if you do not disconnect. But of course it is not mandatory to disconnect.
Basically Tommy’s words are 100% true.
😉
Yes but indirectly one is forced to disconnect for the pressure of the group. That is how perfectly factual truths can be big lies because they only show the superficial logic.
“Practice Makes Imperfect”
I wanna be free to feel like crap the moment after this. The truth of my feelings is my freedom. No codes, no systems. Just pure thought without words, planning, controling. Just flow. Freedom of movements. That is why Scientology is not for me. But I can understand and admire it. And galaxies will keep on coliding.
Hi Geir,
I would like to share some things I find and feel about Scientology.
I find the concepts too mechanical. It’s cold and it doesn’t give much room for intense feelings. For poetry, for example. Isn’t all evil a lack of attention, admiration, love? I don’t know, I am just questioning.
You talk about negative facts instead of focusing on the ideals. It’s all so hard, cold and factual, so logical, predictable. Why do not use the supreme gifts of Scientology communication to love and accept others, more than labeling and judging them? Isn’t arc the great dissolvant? If I am a misunderstood for you because you cannot conceive of me, does that make me wrong? Some judgements are superficial and are most of the times a defense to what we can’t conceive as valid, such as simply a different viewpoint, for example one from where you can see the good in all, instead of the worst. What if all mankind would adopt this viewpoint? Wow. It takes an innocent eye and that is when the simplest thing becomes the hardest. Pretending. There are truths behind lies and you and your system of thought know it, if you honestly observe.
Entheta can be anything that you or a group of beings find it’s disrupting an established order and that is not always bad. That’s why that label is limiting and negative causing, like so many labels, as you are judging things in a superficial way and other’s will feel unconfortable being themselves, for fear of judgement. It happens all the time and everywhere. I could shut up right now for fear of being labeled and put in a specific drawer. We all do that in some way, in order to be accepted and ‘mendle’ with the crowd, each one his own way. We are molded by other people’s expectations in order to reach closer and cause greater effects.
Many things that were felt as disturbing and destructive brought about great results, a lot of theta. I do not trust absolutist concepts and I will question them and relativize them as much as I can. That is my freedom. I do not function with that programming. I also think we should start seeing behaviours as a product of our society. There is point in analizing the individual in the light of searching and finding the social root problems they sit on and only in that light because any other will be too partial and isolated from the context that brought it about. Analizing is partial, understanding is broadening and inclusive. Can you conceive of such an ARC?
Excuse me for the entheta. This is what I think and it was inspired by you too and it gave me pleasure expressing it. I hope it brings something worthy of your thought. If not, it was worth for me to express my feelings, as I could watch another face of mine like I may see yours. I believe we are all living a unique incredible experience, connected to everyone else’s, all in a bigger reality where everything is connected and has an amorous reason to exist. we’re playing parts. Let’s remember the flexibility of the whole thing.
Love rules, not mechanics. There is no material capable of resisting the erosion of water, through time. Dry materials will always have a corresponding sea to flood them. Doesn’t questioning always lead us to higher visions? Doesn’t it make us better God servants by keeping us humble? I don’t know. And i’d rather not know and have my doubts than to be totally secure in a certain viewpoint. I can assume them all. I’d rather have the spontaneous youth of love and not fear of being judged than the wisdom of the ‘crammed till perfection’ efectless rock. And God knows I love rocks. They are also in the sea, part of creation.
I do not wish or need to control everything. I let it flow. Love just is.
May peace always be with you. Let’s dream a good dream.
Good day ~
I don’t know if you’ve seen this, Geir, but I thought I should inform you.
Wally Hanks, a New OT8, has been accused by many Scientologist children/grown children of sexual and physical abuse towards both young boys and girls. This is extremely disturbing. I performed a quick search on YouTube of his name to find this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLv4Q9Tebg “A Child being whipped by Scientologist Wally Hanks”
Warning: the audio is disturbing. Wally tells the clearly young (sounds like 11-13 to me) boy to stare at a picture of LRH while he is being whipped 6 times, and Wally assures the boy that his actions are supported by an LRH “policy,” which is a disgusting manipulation. At the end the boy begs to be kicked out.
I don’t know how well this is known amongst people reading this blog, and I felt it was important bring it up. A google search of Wally Hanks yields more stories of abuse.
I have heard this before. If it’s authentic (it seems so), it is as bad as it gets. LRH wrote really good stuff about bringing up children. I have seen nothing from LRH that would support an abuse like Wally’s.
Drat! Too late for me. It appears to have been removed?
Great idea! Everyone who is in agreement, please raise my hand. 😉 😀
Lonely General Comments section is lonely.
I know 🙂 It’s moved to TSF – everybody has…
Dear Mr Isene,
as a non-scientologist (not yet) I’ve read quite a lot about this topic in the last month, numerous blog posts, news articles and so on from different sources, I have also read Dianetics some years ago (though from a very different perspective and -as you might think- without fully understanding it).
I now come to the conclusion that maybe applying the “tech” could be of help for me also —
as I think of my self as a rather sane and intelligent and mostly communicative person, but with some problems on the “getting things done”-side (procrastrination issues). While I do know that I should be at cause over my life and nothing actually should keep me from reaching my personal goals there’s a big gap between knowing what should be done and actually starting to do it…
So here’s my problem and I hope you or someone else could give me advice:
While I see all this possible gains you people have had and still have by applying scientology (which I really believe to be true in most cases) I have now read so much about this topic that I clearly know now that I won’t seek any advice from the organization itself or will have any courses at an CoS Org.
Also there’s the issue that I have read very much about the person of LRH from different sides, many stories from ex-members like David Mayo or other stuff that show him as a con man and facts that state that he has lied about his past in several cases or that he was addicted to money and power etc.
Now while I really believe that scientology works and it also could work for me, I don’t know if the fact that I’ve read about all theses things (which I partially believe to be true because of the crushing evidence) – I wonder if this would stand in the way of my case if I would seek out to get auditing by a non-church organisation…
It’s a very strange situation I’m in – wanting to give sientology a try and reaching out to people on the one side while having a rather different opinion about the founder of their belief — not knowing if this will keep me from having any wins in processing…
The simple answer to this is: Try it out. See if it also works for you. Find a good resource outside the church and see if it helps you. If it does, there is no amount of information on LRH, good or bad, that will make any difference to what you have experienced with the results you have gotten. Just try it out 🙂
Thank you for your answer and I probably will! 🙂
But, do you say that my sceptisism won’t affect my progress in auditing or will it be perceived as some sort of “engram” – something I have to get rid off?
I would see it as a matter of self-integrity to make up my mind decidedly by evaluating evidence (thus my willingness to try scientology despite some doubts I have) rather than to be somehow be pressurized into a certain direction of thinking via seeing my well-being at stake…. And I am still not talking about the workability of processing (this I can easily make up my mind by ascertain myself of positive effects), but my critical attitude towards LRH… I hope you can duplicate. 😉
Regards,
CPC
Try it out and see if the auditing itself can also help you sort out any doubts.
Geir why is the Scientology forum marked as an “attack site” on my firefox broswer?Also a system error(the westsite)comes up whenever i try to post irregardless of the warning.
I smell an OSA operation…..
I thought they couldn’t pull shit like this off anymore….
See my latest blog post.
Thank you for providing a place that can allow so much free expression. This is what it all comes down to everyday.
I left the Church of Scientology and became a free being. Go figure!!!
The best revenge is living a good life.
Hi Geir
I have coached you more than once – in Stenersgaten and in Waldemar Tranes gate. One afternoon we were shooting (electronic) bears together on a tivoli outside Stenersgaten – remember ?
I came to the same conclusion as you (broadly speaking) around 1992. Welcome after.
I just told them so in a knowledge report and said I would leave.
Went to Copenhagen to clear my name in a final auditing action, so that all lies about me (that were put into my folders) should come to an end. After the floating needle, I left. No declarance or anything.
Went up north. Now my hear is rather grey – and my beard has grown white.
008
Send me an e-mail at g@isene.com
Why not kick David Miscavige out of office with the combined efforts of both Scientologists inside and outside the church. Replace him and his moles with decent Scientologists who would truly apply LRH tech. Tell everyone about the squirreled tech that they are currently paying for:
http://www.friendsoflrh.org/COBvsLRH/
and read this site:
http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.com/index.html
dear Isene.Well done! your actions and considerations have helped. Just checkin that this works.
It does 🙂