Home > Church of Scientology, My timeline > Masters of Argumentum ad Hominem

Masters of Argumentum ad Hominem

Character assassination is a perfected skill of the Office of Special Affairs in the Church of Scientology. It is their first and foremost weapon. To bad I am immune.

I was presented a set of declarations from current Int Base staff. They include viewpoints, mostly on David Miscavige, Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder. According to the declarations, David is a saint. Mike and Marty are the devils. David does everything right while M&M does everything wrong.

I was asked by OSA if I was willing to change my viewpoint. It is an odd question, because my viewpoint is constantly changing. But for me to change my viewpoint on the church management, I need more than ad Hom viewpoints. I need facts – such as the real statistics for the CoS world wide. And even then the church will have a hard time proving negatives of the like that the contents of ethics folders have never been used to discredit anyone (OSA said this in a meeting with me).

I am ready to absorb all kinds of data, but fact is King. Ad Hominem attacks does not register with me.

OSA - The adHom Crew

To OSA: I realize you may be a bit rattled by this post.
I have not revealed much of your ambush meeting. Drop the adHom, give me facts, and you will do fine.

Advertisements
  1. Jim Logan
    2009-09-30 at 17:18

    Geir,
    Now, you see, here, in this OSA intervention is the liability of the notion that the Golden Age of Tech drills give a person who can actually think with the data. These fellas are running a rote procedure, a fixed idea, about the circumstances without actually observing the circumstances. That doesn’t make for good judgment and the analytical mind comes up with wrong answers. Like the wrong answers OSA came up with. There is no hope for them until they graduate up to conceptual understanding of Scientology. Then, they’ll ask you to help them handle David Miscavige. He’s the right target. That’s elemenatary Data Series material. The refusal to give the stats is very telling. Why won’t they look themselves? That’s very telling.

    I wait with bated breath to see if they actually do provide you with the easiest thing in the world to provide you: the actual real stats. Now, since I’ve had no success myself with these fellas, that bated breath is only a figure of speech.

    My personal opinion is they are NOT masters of ad hominem. It’s too easy to spot. It’s along the lines of the early Nazi propaganda and it’s anti-Semitism. The difficulty today with that is that we’re Scientologists, trained, fully armed with integrity and we aint’ buyin’ what DM’s sellin’ anymore.

  2. ExKane
    2009-09-30 at 17:50

    Geir, where do you think this Ad Hominem tactic came from? Did it come from the Tech regarding Suppressives? Hubbard says,
    “Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology we have found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts.” (“Critics of Scientology”, 1968)
    “So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us – only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines.” (“Attacks on Scientology”, HCO Policy Letter, 15 Feb 1966)
    “If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace.” (“Dept of Govt Affairs”, HCO Policy Letter 15 Oct 1960)
    Hubbard implies that the most effective method of response is the Ad Hominem one. It’s not right to respond or debate an attack, but to find or manufacture attacks against the character of the person. And this seems to have been the tactic carried out by the Guardians Office (Paulette Cooper and Operation PC Freakout) and OSA. So where do you think this tactic originated?

    • 2009-09-30 at 18:09

      Do you assume I do not know this?

      • ExKane
        2009-09-30 at 18:12

        No, perhaps you misunderstand my inquiry. My question is not rhetorical. I’m simply wondering where you, as a Scientologist, actually think this came from.

        • 2009-09-30 at 18:16

          Of course I do.

        • Hubbardianen
          2009-09-30 at 19:10

          ExKane,

          Hubbard stated “… critics of Scientology”.

          He did not said “…critics of the Church of Scientology.”

          But I have to agree. Those policy letters from Hubbard confuses me a little. Why did he write them? Perhaps he got bored of all the attacks and just “realized” he got to hit back?

          I personally believe in solid communcation and trying to explain. That can be hard though if the “enemy” is of another kind. Perhaps that’s why he wrote them. I think however, those policy letters create more conflicts than they solve and should be abandoned.

          The only moment when they should be applied, the way I see it, is when you have a critic who constantly lies about Scientology and the CoS and is truly evil. The problem is that CoS uses them when anybody wants to check the facts or just criticize Scientology. I believe in freedom of speech and open discussions.

          • ExKane
            2009-10-01 at 04:46

            I agree with much of this. Out of curiosity, what do you mean by “of another kind”? If you mean that they might be some alternate type of “being”? One thing I have no tolerance for (note: this is not an attack on you; I don’t think this was your original point) is any belief that people’s characters can be divided into well defined groupings (e.g. that group is evil, this group is moral, that group is destructive, etc). I’m a critic of any theory that suggests this, and any person that leads others to view the world in such black and white, us vs. them terms. This is the birthplace of division. People are inherently complex, such that any group is bound to be heterogeneous.
            Also, I think it is extremely rare to find someone that can be called “truly evil,” and I’m not even sure what that would entail. People are complex. I think “evil” is an oversimplified, black-and-white way of seeing people. How can you know when a critic is truly evil?

            • 2009-10-01 at 06:13

              Good post. I agree. As you know, I am squarely against the division of people into undifferentiated categories.

            • Hubbardianen
              2009-10-01 at 08:43

              *laughs* When I wrote “of another kind” I did not insinuate (and you also didn’t think it was my original point) some kind of different “being”. Let’s not create problems here that don’t exist.

              I meant a sinister and evil SP playing in his own league, different from the “normal” critics who just thinks Scientology is made-up, pseudoscience, just don’t like it or want to stop the abuse etc. I was talking about real, recurring evil (such as threats, abuse, lies, violence etc). (I do realize that some of these criterias actually applies to present CoS.)

              Example: Hitler was a another kind of supressor compared to the school bully.

              There’s an interesting sentence in Interview with a vampire: “Evil is just a point of view.” However, Hubbard defined an overt as “something you would not want to happen to yourself” and I think that’s a pretty good foundation to build the concept of evil on.

              Regarding the “group definings”, I think the most nuanced approach to analyze a group is individual evaluation, the second best approach is to talk about overrepresentation and the worst is generalization.

              There are however tendencies in groups that is interesting from a cultural, familair, societal, biological etc point of view in my opinion. For example, about 60-80 % of elite female soccer players are homo/bi-sexuals (homo/bi-sexuals in society constitute something like 2-10 %), about 90 % of NBA players are Afro-americans compared to something like 16 % in society etc. So I think the word overrepresentation is a pretty good word to use when talking about groups, as long as one understands you can’t judge any individual in that group by those numbers. Every indivual is unique.

          • Chris
            2009-10-02 at 02:01

            Well the things about those PL’s were that they were written when ACTUAL attacks by ACTUAL governments and ACTUAL psychiatrists were being conducted who had ACTUAL crimes.
            OSA being a mediocre incompetent version of the GO with no conceptual understanding of scientology thus repeats these same tactics blindly for no reason.
            They even act “suprised” when things like the South Park episode occur(which should be a textbook definition of blowback)

        • Margaret
          2009-10-01 at 00:45

          ExKane, Hubbard also wrote policies which implore OSA and Scientologists to respond to false statements with true, documented ones.

          Unfortunately, OSA (and Miscavige) know that there is no defense for Miscavige’s violent behavior — and so they have no choice but to argue with attacks and ad hominem.

    • UnDisturbed
      2009-09-30 at 19:09

      ExKane: I think you miss the point (and maybe OSA does too)! I have read all of Geir’s posts and have never seen him criticize Scientology (i.e. the tech and LRH). He has criticized Management of the Church. These are entirely different ‘identifications’. They are not the same! Look at Data Series 2-1 “Assumed ‘Identies’ are not identical”.

      So the LRH quotes do not apply to what Geir is doing. At the point where the public misidentifies DM as equal to Scientology then this type of nonsense occurs. I believe Marty has covered this on his blog too.

      • ExKane
        2009-10-01 at 03:34

        ???
        I had no intention of implying that they apply to what Geir is doing. The responses I’ve been getting to this have been utterly confusing. Maybe I’m missing something.

    • Jim Logan
      2009-09-30 at 20:14

      ExKane,
      I think you may have slipped into a bit of what OSA has. That policy, like any other, is evaluated against PRESENT TIME circumstances. It is not meant as some robotic datum to be applied rotely in any and every circumstance. It has its uses.

      Your argument is the same they use. It’s the same literallness with out a broader view and comparing one scene to another. Judgment is lacking. The problem here on this discussion board in this case is an older datum from an earlier version of the Auditor’s Code. It is unseemly to engage in argument with the uniformed. Picking some snip of one issue from the entire body of materials and with no other context or grasp of the purpose, spirit and intent of the work, doesn’t fly. It doesn’t fly for OSA, it doesn’t fly in your polemic. Your a critic of the church and Scientology. If I robotically applied the above I’d not be writing this easy response. See. I understand the above policy and I have no compunction about applying it, in the appropriate circumstance. It’s proven very effective since time immemorial. Read for instance The Prince. Nothing new, just tried and true.

      • ExKane
        2009-10-01 at 03:41

        I think people are reading malevolent intentions into what I wrote. As I said, my question was not rhetorical.
        “Your argument is the same they use.”
        I wasn’t making any argument. It was a question. I merely wanted to know, as someone who is not an expert on all things Scientology, if OSA’s practices have basis these LRH writings or not, and what the possible alternatives are.

        • Jim Logan
          2009-10-01 at 07:08

          Ex,
          OK, to your question. Some of OSA’s practices have these policies as their base.

          In terms of ‘alternatives’, you’ll have to narrow that down to an instance. No policy is meant to be robotically applied. There are alternatives in any situation. Give me a specific and we can discuss alternatives.

    • RJ
      2009-10-01 at 01:12

      Exkane I fail to see where use the use of ad hominem is mentioned in any of those policies cited (oh by the way the correct title and date for the policy is Attacks on Scientology (Continued) and the Date is actually 18 Feb 66) thus making the same mistake OSA does by interpreting policy, they have narrowed the whole subject down to Character Assassination and Black Propaganda which by the way is the same mechanism used by the espiocracy when they want to neutralize a vocal opponent or whistle blower.

      Now about Paulette Cooper. The fact is if it wasn’t for the GO’s idiotic campaign against her she would have just been another Harvard psychologist who would of fallen into obscurity. So really thanks to the GO she has gained celebrity status. Status she would have never had otherwise and that turgid and practically unreadable book of trite sensationalism with the unoriginal title of “The Scandal of Scientology” would have its proper use as a door stop or paper weight.

      Same could be said about Richard Behar and Russell Miller. Obviously in those two latter cases OSA didn’t learn from the GO but anyway as Einstein is quoted to have said “insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting different results.”, which pretty much covers what OSA is doing right now.

      In fact I don’t call them OSA but GO lite “not as fulfilling with only half the taste”.

      At least the GO went after oppressive Government agencies while OSA goes after little hackers wearing Guy Falkes masks who are mainly in it for the “lulz” and now support oppressive government agencies like the DEA for example.

    • 2009-10-01 at 06:29

      ExKane,
      Realize that the critics LRH is referring to 40+ years ago were not devoted Scientologists like the top critics are today. It’s a completely different scene. Then you had people who knew nothing about the subject, really. Now you have people who know the subject inside out. It’s a different ball game now. Today’s critics have the same order of crimes as your average SO member, which, compared to many other segments of the population is not much.

      • ABC
        2009-10-01 at 12:22

        And therefore these policies should be completely abolished. They have always done more harm than good.

        • Jim Logan
          2009-10-01 at 15:07

          ABC,
          And of course since there are no foxes, the hen house fence should be taken down. Reason in the use of tools is what is needed. I think we can all agree, it’s a new unit of time and reflexes ingrained from past experiences are not necessarily appropriate to the present conditions. The ‘group’ functions much like any organism and can be ‘reactive’ too. That reactivity can be just as aberrated.

  3. Cinnamon
    2009-09-30 at 18:06

    Someone recently told me that Scientology is good for nothing but to scam people and to ruin people’s lives. That is how they see Scientology. They cannot believe that the tech has anything of value to offer.

    The Church of Scientology’s problem is they are trying to expand, when they should try applying lower conditions. For example, they need to make ammends to a lot of people. They need to straighten out their act, and stop abusing people.

    Then, maybe society will eventually accept them. With all that Scientology has to offer, by now it should be in a much higher condition, and well accepted by all. It is not well-accepted.

    This is not a stat, but an indicator in the absense of their stats.

    • Smeso
      2009-09-30 at 20:32

      That is a correct observation.
      A series of amends projects would help, but the church would have to do the even lower formulas first to get ready for getting out of liability.

      • Cinnamon
        2009-09-30 at 21:17

        Wow! I must have been out longer than I thought.

    • Margaret
      2009-10-01 at 00:48

      That *is* an excellent observation Cinnamon. Thank you.

  4. Maria
    2009-09-30 at 18:08

    I agree on the stats. But I wonder how conclusive they might be as I am pretty sure some of them have been redefined over the years which makes charting a trend very difficult. As an example, student points can include courses that are being retreaded or redone under new checksheets, can include little courses, can include administrative training, can include staff training. I would be most interested in the public 1st time on a major service statistic for auditing and training separately, especially for 1st service starts in the Academy, staff excluded.

    • 2009-09-30 at 18:15

      I would like to see:

      1. Number of first starts
      2. Value of Service Delivered
      3. Gross Income
      4. IAS members
      5. Number of Sea Org members
      6. Number of staff members
      7. Number of Clears made
      8. Number of Class VI auditors made
      9. Number of Class VIII auditors made
      10. Well Done Auditing Hours
      • Smeso
        2009-09-30 at 20:37

        Yes, and also:
        Number of Class IV auditors made
        New People In (for the ideal orgs it would be good to see this statistic compared to the figure while the org was at the earlier location)

      • 2009-10-20 at 05:33

        If anyone has any information about the values and trends of the international statistics of Scientology over the last 3 decades, and you would like to assist in the investigation, please visit keepingscientologyworking.com and fill out the public interrogatory.

  5. Smeso
    2009-09-30 at 20:51

    What I find so sad about OSA in EU is that they just repeat what they are being fed. They think that signed affidavits from Int Base people would mean that Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder are lying (and also Jeff Hawkins, Steve Hall, and all the rest of them).
    I was at the Int Base for over 5 years, and I know that those who signed the affidavits are the ones who are lying until they are blue in the face.
    I was told by OSA (indirectly) that the black propaganda is the same enemy lines as usual, but now with more heavy names behind them.
    Do you feel heavy?
    And they use the Freedom magazine as Dead Agent material (Dead Agent, for those not used to the term, means to disprove facts stated by the enemy).
    What is so sad about this is that the people in OSA EU really believe what it says in the Freedom magazine as they have not been able to observe for themselves, just like poor Tommy Davis, who has not been at the Int Base either, so he doesn’t really know what it is he is denying.

    • Margaret
      2009-10-01 at 00:52

      Well, at this point, you’ve got 14 individuals formerly from Int Base that have seen or received DM’s violent behavior. This isn’t just one or two or three disgruntled individuals anymore … this is a large group of people, all concurring on DM’s violent behavior.

      There’s simply no way to deny it.

      • 2009-10-01 at 06:04

        I have talked to several more ex Int Base staff having confirmed what the 14 “official” individuals have said.

  6. Cinnamon
    2009-09-30 at 21:23

    Anyway, I was thinking more like “treason” or something. It’s been a while, and I don’t remember where “liability” fits in relation to it.

    • 2009-09-30 at 21:45

      It goes (from top down):

      • Power
      • Affluence
      • Normal
      • Emergency
      • Danger
      • Non-Existence
      • Liability
      • Doubt
      • Enemy
      • Treason
      • Confusion
      • Copyright
      • Cinnamon
        2009-09-30 at 22:03

        Thanks.

      • RJ
        2009-10-01 at 01:16

        I’d say copyright is probably the correct condition for the Church, Geir πŸ™‚

        • 2009-10-01 at 06:07

          I’d say πŸ˜‰

      • 2009-10-01 at 04:53

        Copyright?

        • 2009-10-01 at 06:19

          You know, the condition where DM is obsessed by immaterial rights; Rights such as tracking down anyone who dare to quote LRH in any way or copy his text for any use. The stuff that ultimately leads to a totalitarian state. You know…. well, you got me going.

          (it’s a joke)

  7. LO
    2009-09-30 at 22:10

    Hi Gear,

    AAARARARRARAgghghghg. I give you stat of some days ago. I’m still cooking, angry and mad. I just can’t believe it but it really happened. A relative of mine was offered a free Arcx session, she was happy to get it for free and I was expecting some great wins. A GAT class 4 auditor audited her/him with evaluations as you don’t have to tell your whole life story just answer the question ! Remarks about that people have different viewpoints about ethics (staff and public), invalidation that there is propably something wrong with her last auditing action but the c/s will decide- this after a read on a question. after the ssesion she remarked that the pc shouldn’t concentrate on negative things in life (Joke as the pc is very hightone and upstat in life but has disagreements about the 2ds of staff and their way of living and about the ideal org). Also after the session she made personal remarks about a good friend (she didn’t know its a good friend of him/her)by tellling she knows because she audited the guy. The pc came to me afterwards and was quite confused, is no more willing to go into the Org and I had to run run out the session. Iwa so angry wanted to write a report, but as i already had once wrote an report about that auditor to no avail and because of that auditor be so obviously out-tech and the Org and cs (class 6) don’t see it Igave up and let the steam out here. that is a stat. I’ ve about several dozens of such stories but never gave up thinking one day the org will be onm tech……Still hoping………
    Re stat ask also for NNCF (new name to CF) which means any person buying the first time a service or book (if somebody buys 10 Books and 20 courses he nevertheless counts as 1 NNCF) and also for BIS (bodies in the shop) which means the total number of people on paid service that week (if joe was 10x on course he counts only as 1 BIS). Ask for the the real stats of recent ideal Org Berlin. You’ll be amazed I know that the staffs there are not aloud to use the elevator, as there is not enough money for electricity. Also an org I know has about 120 staffs but only about 3-4 auditors and are delivering about 50 hours per week ! What is the rest of the staff doing ? I don’t know,do you know ?
    About 20-30 years ago I used to read the Telexes on the Staff Notice Board in the orgs and there all stats from any Org worldwide were published (or at least the main stats). Today I don’t even find a staff notice board in an org or I’m not aloud to read it as not being staff and I’m chased away. Men you got courage ! I’m still angry and still don’t know what to do. I hope you guys will come with good solutions and projects. I want my religion back, I lost it somewhere but don’t know where.

    Greetings

    • 2009-10-01 at 05:47

      Long – but with interesting data. Shorter next time πŸ™‚

    • Jim Logan
      2009-10-01 at 07:13

      LO,
      From me, thanks for cleaning up that godawful travesty that guy had the nerve to call a ‘session’. That is a stat for the good guys, you. Just continue to do that, audit people in a safe environment with Standard Tech. That’s what it’s ALL about. Again, thank you.

      • LO
        2009-10-02 at 17:56

        TKU Jim for the validation !
        Wow I got a product and he/she is happy again nad I don’t worry anymore about this kind of funny tech !

  8. RD
    2009-09-30 at 23:09

    For OSA to blame everything on Marty and Mike doesn’t work. Marty left the SO in early 2004. Mike left in 2006? Hey OSA, it’s 2009! The low toned pain drive mechanisms have increased toward staff and public.

    • 2009-10-01 at 06:02

      The OSA person in the meeting claimed everything is much better after Mike Rinder left. Really? Mike left in 2007. What happened after that? Well, we got Anonymous, the biggest demonstrations against the church ever, Jason Beghe came out with his video, The SP Times article series, lots of OTs have been leaving and there has been tons of bad PR in between. The last 3 years of Mike in the church, there were no court cases agains the church (as far as I know). Today there is at least three. I believe the church’s PR as in free fall under Tommy Davis.

  9. wgas
    2009-10-01 at 01:41

    L Ron Hubbard is ultimately responsible for this mess. Being an OT XV with unlimited abilities, he could resolve this.

    • 2009-10-01 at 06:09

      Trolling again, are we?
      How do you know that LRH was OT XV?

      • 2009-10-01 at 23:23

        I’m an ex sci who had his young life ruined by L Ron and his church. You don’t think L Ron made it to the “other end of the bridge”? L Ron is supposed to have unlimited abilities. He’s the one who preached it was possible and attainable. Fact is, no Scientologist has any more power than raw meat wogs. Flag talks about 2 billion megawatt OTs. Where are these mighty beings? How ’bout a simple demonstration of “exteriorization with full perceptions”.

        • 2009-10-02 at 06:31

          I think we have covered this ground many times on this blog…

    • Hubbardianen
      2009-10-01 at 08:59

      Jet Heller writes this about Hubbard:

      “It is one thing to lay out these levels conceptually, quite another to actually RUN them.

      He never ran them.

      I don’t think Ron even made it to OT VIII, which is really just an introductory OT level.”

      I’ve read somewhere, I think it was David Mayo, who said that Hubbard made it up to OT XI. All of this should be regarded as more of less qualified speculations though.

  10. TRUTH
    2009-10-01 at 02:48

    You are right on Geir! DM MUST start from Copyright (at the bottom). I still don’t think DM (SP) has a chance to get his liability approved by the group once he gets to that point. As his amends, DM has to at least spend a life time in jail in this life time.

    • RJ
      2009-10-01 at 06:49

      At least this lifetime or several lifetimes served consecutively in a prison cell with a big guy named Bubba.

      • Heather
        2009-10-02 at 12:45

        Glad to see Anonymous has contributed something of value, RJ (Bubba). πŸ˜‰

  11. altruistichedonist
    2009-10-01 at 03:10

    Although I’ve been out for a long time, I would have to assign all senior Scientology organizations the condition of treason until such time as David Miscavige is fully handled. i.e. sec checked and most likely offloaded. Once it reaches the condition of liability, it can be “permitted” to make amends and will have to publish the true statistics.
    Until that time, I have the personal integrity to ignore any arguments allowing it to continue in it’s present form. The PR machine for David Miscavige doesn’t penetrate society anymore. I’ll operate on that postulate for a while. Let him try to alter-is that.

    • 2009-10-01 at 06:10

      Agree. Good post.

  12. Anonymous for a reason
    2009-10-01 at 06:35

    Fine text, Geir.

    Have a nice day.
    .)

    – –
    E

  13. ABC
    2009-10-01 at 12:34

    Hubbardianen :
    Jet Heller writes this about Hubbard:
    β€œIt is one thing to lay out these levels conceptually, quite another to actually RUN them.
    He never ran them.
    I don’t think Ron even made it to OT VIII, which is really just an introductory OT level.”
    I’ve read somewhere, I think it was David Mayo, who said that Hubbard made it up to OT XI. All of this should be regarded as more of less qualified speculations though.

    If Ron never made it to OT8 himself, then how did he even come up with OT8, how did he even know that it works?

    • 2009-10-01 at 14:31

      Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Jet Heller thinks Ron didn’t get to OT VIII.

      Apart from that, there are areas where you know that something is almost bound to work without even testing it (I am not advocating this as a general approach, though)

      • Hubbardianen
        2009-10-01 at 17:19

        David Mayo claims this in this document:

        http://www.robertdam-cos.dk/Mayo%20on%20Hubbard.pdf

        “After LRH completed Solo NOTs he continued on with solo auditing, researching
        the levels above that and eventually completed up through OT 11.”

  14. Nomnom
    2009-10-01 at 17:08

    Who knows what LRH’s case level actually was. He had so many different processes run on himself and by himself that no grade chart label would fit. Not to mention that the OT levels have been redefined over the years. I recommend reading Otto Roos’ story for some interesting details about his processing.

    • Jim Logan
      2009-10-01 at 18:55

      Nom,
      Better than reading Otto’s viewpoint of LRH’s auditing, get auditing yourself, all the way to Solo and from there and find out about YOURSELF.

    • Hubbardianen
      2009-10-03 at 15:56

      I agree with you Nomnom. Hubbard probably experimented a lot, it’s also fully possible that he didn’t complete the full research regarding the bridge. His absolutetly most important contribution though is that he has started something important and a new way of thinking. And a hell of a lot of breakthroughs.

  15. Nomnom
    2009-10-01 at 20:19

    Jim, Not sure what you mean. All I’m saying is that LRH’s case level can’t really be defined by a grade chart label. Other than some historical perspective, by pointing to Otto’s story I didn’t mean anything disparaging. BTW, I’m an OT 7 and had great wins with auditing.

    • Jim Logan
      2009-10-01 at 21:20

      Nom,
      My mistake in interpretation. Sorry about dat.

  16. Rebel Too
    2009-10-01 at 22:17

    Apart from that, there are areas where you know that something is almost bound to work without even testing it (I am not advocating this as a general approach, though)

    LOL! As a New OTVl11,this comment totally amused me. What’s on OTVlll now..well let’s just suffice it to say that it anyone could do it and probably have some wins.I won’t say here what I personally thought of it knowing your expectations were met, Geir.

  17. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-01 at 22:56

    SPs, SmeshPees…

    I don’t pay attention to “How to fix DM”, or “What is DM doing wrong?”

    DM is the quisling talking-head tool-boy following the orders of his masters, who are at last accomplishing their goal set in 1948: to smash the only defense we might have had to their total enslavement regime here at “Last Stand Earth”.

    Of COURSE he’s doing everything as wrong as possible. Of COURSE he’s making enemies faster than they can be bought/fought off. Of COURSE he’s now milking the last of the blood-money from the remaining churchie-sheeple.

    He’s an upstat! Not once did he do anything of benefit to Scientology. πŸ˜‰

    • RJ
      2009-10-02 at 08:24

      Well one things for sure NOM he done more damage than the combined efforts of the AMA, APA, FDA, WFMH, FBI, IRS and all the other alphabet soup agencies that have had Scientology in their sights for over 30 years. If Miscavige isn’t directly working for one of them he is definitely wittingly or unwittingly working on their behalf.

      However, look on the bright side Nom. There is no possible way they are able to walk back the cat on this one. I mean Scientology actual Scientology is out here in the Independent Field and is still in use!

      They may have been able to slow us down but haven’t been able to stop us!

    • Tomas
      2009-10-02 at 12:17

      Spot on – nom de Plume. Thats the way I analyse DM. I think there are so little free theta and so much machine in that body that he can be regarded as a robot.
      But I don’t think Scientology is the only stand against total enslavement, perhaps one of the major, but not by far the only one

      • Jim Logan
        2009-10-02 at 15:59

        Tomas,
        Depends on how you define ‘Scientology’. My understanding is that it is nothing more than the basic truths of life, a description of the agreements leading to universes (like this one) and a ‘hat’ for a being. Since there are plenty of beings, and they are Ulitmate Truth, whether in or out of ‘Scientology’ as a looslely defined group, then they too can express truth. Truth is truth, Scientology is a also used to describe that truth, wherever it emanates.

  18. wgas
    2009-10-02 at 15:22

    How could LRH not be OTXV?

    I’d be very suspect of a person who built a bridge and had never crossed it.

    • 2009-10-02 at 17:47

      Like you would be very suspect of a surgeon who hadn’t done the operation on himself first?

      • wgas
        2009-10-02 at 18:44

        So maybe LRH didn’t need OT XV? Maybe LRH doesn’t have unlimited abilities? Maybe there really are no OTs. I certainly see no evidence that there are.

        Just prove “exteriorization with full perceptions” in a laboratory setting and you’ll instantly create millions of new Scientologists.

        If this surgeon kept his new revolutionary, life saving procedures secret, wouldn’t allow independent testing of results, charged vast sums of money, conspired to destroy skeptics of his major medical breakthroughs- I’d be very suspect.

        • wgas
          2009-10-02 at 19:03

          If you don’t want me here Geir, then I’ll leave. I’m not here to troll but to challenge. I don’t believe Scientologists have extraordinary powers like those that are promised. I wish I could be proven wrong though. Scientology used to be my whole future but sadly I could no longer justify being a part of it because “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”.

          I do admire you though for having the courage to question the church, leave, and speak out (I’m still in semi-hiding). It’s just that you still want to spread Scientology (which I consider a cancer). I’d love to be proven wrong though. I often wish Scientology were genuine. I used to dream of going OT.

          But after reading OT3 – it’s embarrassing that I was ever a part of it.

          • 2009-10-02 at 20:06

            I don’t mind challenge. I do mind rudeness, impoliteness and trolling. Be polite and you are welcome here.

            If you love to be proven wrong regarding Scientology, you should get a good auditor outside of the church – I mean a really good one.

            I don’t get why some people gets all whoopedy-hoo about the OT materials. There is much wilder stuff in the book “Have you lived before this life?” or the early lectures or in the book “History of Man”. If there is free will, everything is possible and the wildest things have happened.

            • wgas
              2009-10-02 at 20:33

              Thanks

              I’m not letting Scientology mess up my mind anymore than it already has. I don’t trust L Ron Hubbard. Humans are susceptible to delusions so I need objective – not subjective – evidence of the power of Scientology’s techniques.

              How can you ever tell the difference between a facsimile and a mock up? I can imagine past lives but that doesn’t mean that they’re real.

              I was pretty stunned and thrown into doubt about Scientology after skimming through HYLBTL and HOM.
              I would have never joined Scientology if I knew the nature of the OT levels upfront. It’s a bait & switch. I was baited on reasonable (probably surveyed) sounding things but kept in the dark about Scientology’s core. And they pressured me to bring in friends and family which is wrong. I feel betrayed.

              Why is it unethical to demonstrate OT powers? “We don’t do parlor tricks is the standard response”

              The CoS hypes OT powers for megabucks yet fails any demonstrations of them.

              What can an OT do that a wog can’t?

              Sorry for being so off topic and fragmented. I’m gonna give it a rest for a while.

              • 2009-10-02 at 21:00

                For now I don’t spend much attention on “magical OT powers”. I am very happy for the gains I have had and continue to have with Scientology. I never bought much hype about what I would gain on the OT levels, I tend to not have any expectations – in any situation. Expectations are overrated and is setting you up for a loss. No expectations = no betrayal πŸ™‚

        • 2009-10-02 at 19:33

          You took my question and ran with it πŸ™‚

          It was just a question. No need to go off speculating too much.

  19. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-02 at 17:18

    RJ :
    They may have been able to slow us down but haven’t been able to stop us!

    πŸ™‚

    You rock, my friend.

  20. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-02 at 17:44

    Tomas :
    But I don’t think Scientology is the only stand against total enslavement, perhaps one of the major, but not by far the only one

    Hi, Tomas. Thanks – I needed that. πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€

    Yes! And when I’m not on one of my “rants”, I do seem to notice that, despite the best efforts of the enslavers, many slumbering warriors around the planet are beginning to awaken…

    “May you live in interesting times.”
    -(reputed)ancient Oriental curse

    ? Ha ha… Always sounded more like my taste in benedictions.

    πŸ˜‰
    Nom

  21. LO
    2009-10-02 at 17:53

    Hi Geir,

    This time I’m very short.
    Did you ever look at the traffic stat of your blog ?
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/isene.com
    Seems that 25% of you readers are German !
    This is interesting ! Isn’t it ?

    • 2009-10-02 at 17:58

      Interesting. But that’s my personal site. This blog has 83% US visitors and ranked much higher.

  22. Anonymous for a reason
    2009-10-02 at 18:23

    Hello again, Geir.

    Thank you for an exciting tea the other day. Nice to meet you again. These are very exciting times, most definately. πŸ™‚
    I am doing well these days and I probably will for the rest of my life! .)

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: