Total Membership Numbers

[Div6]

From a discussion on OCMB: (http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?p=280188&highlight=#280188)

"no_8c_now wrote:
LBV,

Is that 40,000 number based on stats compiled at Int? It seems too high if counting Bodies in the Shop. If they are counting "active" Scienos, what's the criteria for that?

Anything you can share on the trend of this number over the years?"

LBV:
"That's the IAS membership figure as of 2006, the reason DM assigned Janet Light (President IASA) to the SP Room at Int, in addition to her "inability" to put together an IAS event. And as you probably know, all SO members and Org staffs are counted as IAS members. There are 6,500 SO members and at least 10,000 Org staff, which means there are 20,000-25,000 active Scientology public in the world. Per official count.

I don't know what the figures have been over the years. Per what someone told me recently, it is about the same number as it was in the late 80ies. Hope someone can confirm.

Since the number of Clears has (reportedly) been 40,000 since the 80ies, that told me all I needed to know about alleged Scientology expansion and the accuracy of the "9,000,000 Scientologists" figure. I am amazed this datum alone didn't blow the rest of what is left of Int Mgmt apart. It's beyond me what else do they need to hear to realize even they are flat out being lied to."



That is roughly a little more than one public per staff member!
I wonder how many "6 month free" memberships are padding it.
Mick, how does this compare to the early 80's numbers?

I think DM has a point. Anyone wilful enough to join the SO should be taken out of the gene pool.....it is "the greater good". :omg: :omg: :omg:

[TheSneakster]

not important

[OHTEEATE]

That estimate is probably spot on. I have been saying for years, and hardly ever get acknowledged on it, that the real figure on membership is IAS members who are past the free 6 months. Attempts to keep this figure a secret are futile, as too many know it, and people in the IAS blow, too. So, now we know. Less than 50,000. What is amazing is how long after the death of the founder this little cult has survived in somewhat coherent form.

[Bea Kiddo]

But do they keep track of those SP declared and take them off? I still have my lifetime IAS card.

And those leaving the SO? Do they keep their status?

[Zinjifar]

But do they keep track of those SP declared and take them off? I still have my lifetime IAS card.

And those leaving the SO? Do they keep their status?

I think it's pretty obvious that various theories about 'how many scientologists' have all been upwardly far too lenient.

Over the past 10 years, I've been willing to grant 50,000, and, some critics are willing to go with 100, 000 or even 250,000.

The 'Church' of course claims more than 8,000,000

:)

Why? Because, if they can fool that many people, they *must* be right.

But, accepting the 10,000 Sea Org and Staff.. I think it's unlikely that there are more than 40,000 Scientologists, and, a good percentage of them are only still 'scientologists' because of fear of the retaliation using 'Disconnection' that would result if they announced their leaving...

We are approaching the point where there are as many 'practicing' Scientologists in the Freezone/Indie Scene as there are in the 'public' realm of 'Church' Scientology.

Ignoring the Sea Org and 'staff' slaves....

Zinj

[Zinjifar]

There are almost certainly a thousand percent more *Ex* Scientologists than practicing Scientologists even *accepting* the 'church', FZ and 'indie' scenes.

Zinj

[Mojo]

I think DM has a point. Anyone wilful enough to join the SO should be taken out of the gene pool.....it is "the greater good". :omg: :omg: :omg:

Which was Hubbard's point to begin with. DM merely carried on with it (being a chip off the ole block).

Hubbard lived by the dictum that a fool and his money deserve to be parted. And spiritual power was coin for Ron (ala his mentor the master).

The upside of the spiritual equation that Ron either failed to realize, or realized and didn't care, was/is that any being that lives more than one life is destined to learn by its mistakes. Thus one lifetime in a prison is worth (as a price) 100 lifetimes being free. So to speak. Of course the greatest lessons last forever.

[NonScio]

The 8,000,000 figure is probably the total sales of DMSMH at some point
added to anyone who has ever walked into a mission or org and been
foolish enough to leave their name and adress.

Like the Chicago role of qualified voters, the official figure probably
also includes the names of many dead people, some of whom,
in spite being OT whatever...died. I wonder if LRon is still carried
on the rolls as a "member".

[Zinjifar]

The 8,000,000 figure is probably the total sales of DMSMH at some point

I doubt there was *ever* any sane rationalization for that number. It was at *best* wishful thinking. There was never a reason to claim it except that it 'sounded good'.

There were never 8 million Scientologists and, if it could be said that 8 million might have somewhere along the line even read Dianetics!!, it would be sheer accident.

More likely, about 3 million people have ever read DMSMH in the past 50 years, if you count those who read at least half the book, but, of that 'public', only a miniscule number considered it anything but codswallop and, it's unlikely that even a majority of Scientologists have actually *read* 'Dianetics; The Modern Science of Mental Health'.

At best; they've skimmed it.

Zinj

[Bea Kiddo]

HEY!!!

Maybe they are doubling up counting all the past life Scientologists!!!:dieslaughing: :dieslaughing: :dieslaughing:

[Zinjifar]

HEY!!!

Maybe they are doubling up counting all the past life Scientologists!!!:dieslaughing: :dieslaughing: :dieslaughing:

Or, maybe they're just pulling the numbers out of their ass. It's good enough for Hubbard; it's good enough for them...

Scientology has:

1) 2,000,000 dollars hidden
2) 4,000,000 dollars hidden
3) 10,000,000,000 hidden.

Since there is no 'evidence', it's all fantasy. (but, the third is most likely)

Zinj

[NonScio]

HEY!!!

Maybe they are doubling up counting all the past life Scientologists!!!:dieslaughing: :dieslaughing: :dieslaughing:

Oh, but that would be cheating! Well, anyway I should think then they
should count the multi lifetime Scientologist as only one...if he was
Joe Smith Scientologist in a past life and comes back as Joe Jones
Scientologist, they get credit only for Jones!

Gee, maybe that's why they abuse staff and cause so much premature
death..cancer and all that...among long time Scios...get them to
come back ASAP and get double stats for one thetan!
Sort of like the economic concept of "velocity of money" (number of
times a dollar bill changes hands in a given time period)...Velocity of
Scientology...lets call it "VOS" for short!

[Div6]

Oh, but that would be cheating! Well, anyway I should think then they
should count the multi lifetime Scientologist as only one...if he was
Joe Smith Scientologist in a past life and comes back as Joe Jones
Scientologist, they get credit only for Jones!

Gee, maybe that's why they abuse staff and cause so much premature
death..cancer and all that...among long time Scios...get them to
come back ASAP and get double stats for one thetan!
Sort of like the economic concept of "velocity of money" (number of
times a dollar bill changes hands in a given time period)...Velocity of
Scientology...lets call it "VOS" for short!

Please, lets not give them any ideas for new forms of stat pushing.
They proved their artistry with the credit card scams.

[Dulloldfart]

Or, maybe they're just pulling the numbers out of their ass.



You're totally correct, Zinj. :)

From a webbed post (http://www.xenu.net/entheta/entheta/1stpersn/rvy/1997-002.html) by Robert Vaughn Young, ex-head of Scn PR:


At that time, we were in a massive anti-FDA campaign, stemming from the
raid on the Washington, DC, organization, over the role/function of the
E-Meter so there was media interest. Inevitably, we were asked how many
members we had and while the local PR might come up with a number for
his/her area, we didn't have a figure for national, let alone
international, and this was noticed at the US office. PRs were giving
random figures and so we had to come up with a stable figure. Nothing was
used to calculate the figure. It was dreamed up as "over one million"
because anything less wouldn't sound good. There was no count of students
or anything. It was simply dreamed up and the figure sent to the PRs to
use when asked. (We also needed it for the publications we were putting
out.)

Paul

[hartley]

The 8,000,000 figure is probably the total sales of DMSMH at some point added to anyone who has ever walked into a mission or org and been foolish enough to leave their name and adress.

PLEASE don't try to rationalise this false data. The 'millions of members' claim is fantasy. It is based on nothing at all. They made it up. It's a lie. Not a shred of evidence has ever been produced for it. It is, in short, a dead parrot.

[OHTEEATE]

while we're on the subject, don't you think it's odd that in over 50 years the CofS has not been able to attract and keep more than 50,000 people? I got in when the Missions were booming in California, and EVERYBODY of college age was checking out Scientology. Davis was HUGE. Riverside was HUGE. It never got past the destruction of the mission network by LRH and his henchmen, trying to get some money in his pocket. Now, they take 20% right off the top and limit Missionholders to $50,000 a year max. income. Brilliant! small think assholes.

[Div6]

while we're on the subject, don't you think it's odd that in over 50 years the CofS has not been able to attract and keep more than 50,000 people? I got in when the Missions were booming in California, and EVERYBODY of college age was checking out Scientology. Davis was HUGE. Riverside was HUGE. It never got past the destruction of the mission network by LRH and his henchmen, trying to get some money in his pocket. Now, they take 20% right off the top and limit Missionholders to $50,000 a year max. income. Brilliant! small think assholes.

Yes, I do think it is odd.

The question I am asking myself is "What valuable products has the Sea Org ACTUALLY produced?"

I see lots of unwanted products, but I am still struggling to articulate any ACTUAL products in any volume.

GAT?
BASICS?
Golden Era Films?
Org Management?

The EUS couldn't even stat push an org to St. Hill size. Now that was pretty pathetic.

Any ideas? Any ACTUAL products out there?

[Bea Kiddo]

Are you blind Div 6?

I know of some Scientologists that claimed to have used their OT Powers to stop a hurricane from coming to land at Flag Land Base.

And another who claims to have been the cause of the Berlin wall coming down.

There are many, many, many stories of OT abilities. Pages and pages of successes of wins from auditing and OT Levels. They are making POWERFUL beings.

(Am I snide enough?)

Kisses Div 6!:whistling:

[Div6]

Are you blind Div 6?

I know of some Scientologists that claimed to have used their OT Powers to stop a hurricane from coming to land at Flag Land Base.

And another who claims to have been the cause of the Berlin wall coming down.

There are many, many, many stories of OT abilities. Pages and pages of successes of wins from auditing and OT Levels. They are making POWERFUL beings.

(Am I snide enough?)

Kisses Div 6!:whistling:

Uh.....(mwh\mwh\mwh) No, I'm not blind, er..just doing some Alanzo research...uh yeah. For the Guiness Book of Wold Records..uh....:omg:

[Bea Kiddo]

Uh.....(mwh\mwh\mwh) No, I'm not blind, er..just doing some Alanzo research...uh yeah. For the Guiness Book of Wold Records..uh....:omg:

:dieslaughing: :dieslaughing: :dieslaughing: :dieslaughing: :dieslaughing: :dieslaughing: :dieslaughing: :dieslaughing: :dieslaughing:

Makes you blind and unable to spell....:whistling: :whistling: :whistling:

[HillFlag]

Just wondering....are they allowed to count those who have signed a billion year contract, but who have "dropped the body". Theoretically, they should be counted right? And what about those who are children....can they count those under 18....or,15....or,12....or,2 etc even though they are "out exchange little freeloaders" at this age. :confused2:

[TheSneakster]

not important

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

But do they keep track of those SP declared and take them off? I still have my lifetime IAS card.

And those leaving the SO? Do they keep their status?

My Scientology website is still up, but I don't have control over it. I still have my "Sponsor" IAS card, etc.

[Free to shine]

My Scientology website is still up, but I don't have control over it. I still have my "Sponsor" IAS card, etc.

My site is too, I REALLY would like it to come down! I emailed the general contact address but of course had no reply. I said it was "no longer appropriate". I wonder if there is any way to get it taken down?

[Dulloldfart]

My site is too, I REALLY would like it to come down! I emailed the general contact address but of course had no reply. I said it was "no longer appropriate". I wonder if there is any way to get it taken down?

Get a lot of bad press coverage where you are called a Scientologist.

Think Reed Slatkin.

Paul

[Alanzo]

My site is too, I REALLY would like it to come down! I emailed the general contact address but of course had no reply. I said it was "no longer appropriate". I wonder if there is any way to get it taken down?

Put up another site denouncing Scientology and then link to your Scientology Web page.

[Jimmy Cricket]

what about those who are children....can they count those under 18....or,15....or,12....or,2 etc even though they are "out exchange little freeloaders" at this age.

(Please note, I am not trying to derail this thread.) Hillflag, maybe you can consider starting a new thread about those "out exchange little freeloaders" and what Co$ really thinks about children.

[HillFlag]

JC,

You mean "Out exchange little freeloaders" Isn't clear enough? Hmmm, how about that the whole unfortunte inconvenience brought about by the very nature of the parental-child relationship makes children pts to their parents....especially when the parents are trying to do really, really important work.

How dare those kids have needs! And to think, in reality, they are just thetans in a tiny body, downstats...they should be able to handle their own issues and understand the greater good being done all those on staff. So ungrateful. :grouch:

[NonScio]

JC,

You mean "Out exchange little freeloaders" Isn't clear enough? Hmmm, how about that the whole unfortunte inconvenience brought about by the very nature of the parental-child relationship makes children pts to their parents....especially when the parents are trying to do really, really important work.

How dare those kids have needs! And to think, in reality, they are just thetans in a tiny body, downstats...they should be able to handle their own issues and understand the greater good being done all those on staff. So ungrateful. :grouch:

Maybe Scientologists eager to join staff or SO should be required,
like Catholic Clergy, to take vows of lifetime poverty, chastity,
and obedience. Simply formalize the situation. Then you could have
Scientology monastarys with monks, priests, nuns...but absolutely NO
LITTLE BAMBINOs! Maybe they could boost DM's annual income by
brewing some really good wine..."Scientology Vintage 2007" ..maybe
the label could show a picture of LRON, or an old Emeter or something.
Turn it into brandy or Cognac and they could trulyand honestly claim a
"Technology of Spirits".

[Bea Kiddo]

JC,

You mean "Out exchange little freeloaders" Isn't clear enough? Hmmm, how about that the whole unfortunte inconvenience brought about by the very nature of the parental-child relationship makes children pts to their parents....especially when the parents are trying to do really, really important work.

How dare those kids have needs! And to think, in reality, they are just thetans in a tiny body, downstats...they should be able to handle their own issues and understand the greater good being done all those on staff. So ungrateful. :grouch:

When I got older and became tech trained, I ended up auditing my mother. Of course, everything I ever missed on her had to be pulled first.

But I found out that she named me as a PTS item all through her auditing. I was a CHILD. A kid WHO WAS NOT BEING RAISED BY MY MOTHER AT ALL. She took zero responsibility for me and raising me, and thus I ended up very out of control in her eyes. And she names me as her fucking PTS item.

That really irked me.

She named me as of the age of 5 years old.

Children are considered adults in small bodies in Scn and in the SO. So I guess this made no reason for us to be educated on basics like brushing teeth, keeping in exchange, helping elders, manners, being polite, relating and communicating with other family members, treating others with respect, cleaning the room, etc, etc.

These things I had to relearn out of the SO.

Thank god I learn quickly. Or I would be an embarrassment to myself to this day. But I have pulled myself up once again.

the treatment of children in the SO disgusts me.

No, its not the worst possible life, but it still disgusts me.

[Div6]

When I got older and became tech trained, I ended up auditing my mother. Of course, everything I ever missed on her had to be pulled first.

But I found out that she named me as a PTS item all through her auditing. I was a CHILD. A kid WHO WAS NOT BEING RAISED BY MY MOTHER AT ALL. She took zero responsibility for me and raising me, and thus I ended up very out of control in her eyes. And she names me as her fucking PTS item.

That really irked me.

She named me as of the age of 5 years old.

Children are considered adults in small bodies in Scn and in the SO. So I guess this made no reason for us to be educated on basics like brushing teeth, keeping in exchange, helping elders, manners, being polite, relating and communicating with other family members, treating others with respect, cleaning the room, etc, etc.

These things I had to relearn out of the SO.

Thank god I learn quickly. Or I would be an embarrassment to myself to this day. But I have pulled myself up once again.

the treatment of children in the SO disgusts me.

No, its not the worst possible life, but it still disgusts me.


Just when I think we have reached the end of the depravity in your story, you pull one of these and take it to a whole new level.:omg: :omg:


I guess there was no way to avoid that auditing assignment, but then.....my god! Who the fuck needs TV writers you you have this happening in real life....I can see the TV show now ....."Big Blue".

I have a whole new level of respect for you.....:melodramatic:

[Jimmy Cricket]

You mean "Out exchange little freeloaders" Isn't clear enough? Hmmm, how about that the whole unfortunte inconvenience brought about by the very nature of the parental-child relationship makes children pts to their parents....especially when the parents are trying to do really, really important work.

How dare those kids have needs! And to think, in reality, they are just thetans in a tiny body, downstats...they should be able to handle their own issues and understand the greater good being done all those on staff. So ungrateful. :grouch:

And Co$ wonders why membership is dwindling...

[HillFlag]

Bea,

I am sorry for that...that must be hard to work through on so many levels. I was actually kinda making a joke, but one that I knew had to be based in truth for so many, as kids in the SO are kind of in a perpetual lower condition, aren't they? Isn't that the evidence? Isn't that the experience? Isn't that the reality?
************************************************** ***********

Look, many here for whatever reason decided that they would join staff for a wide array of your reasons, probably most, if not all, were well intentioned. What I will never understand is how an adult, who lived outside the church, can see how kids are treated in the SO and not have some sort of reality breaking wake up call that permeates the thick brain haze that Scientology produces, which seemingly irradicates common sense.

Do staff members actually believe that kids are little adults with the ability to fend for themselves and carry with them the obligation remain "in-exchange" with their parents and the group. If so, how do you get to that point....how do you look at a child and think that they are PTS? What warped sense of reality allows one to think that a child should be assigned a lower condition of liability, when all along the parent is a liability to the child in every sense of the word. When does that happen to someone?

How can one become so self-absorbed in attempting to improve themselves and their own spiritual pursuits that they are able to justify the piss-poor life they are providing their kids, let alone the life long trap that most kids will never really escape.

How does one get to the point where they have the gall to claim personal wins while they are spending more time holding cans and learning about the latest escapades of a space alien than they do in with their own kids. At what point does that become OK in one's mind?

How can anyone read the second dynamic and not have a cognition that the whole thing is a joke, a sham, hypocritical and out-ethics. Even if you do not have kids yourself, how do you see what is going on yet remain blind. What fundamental human value is replaced so that you can watch this but not react, or even be affected....or moved at the very least?

Many of you are lucky that you were able to just leave....sure it may have been hard and unfortunate and a little sad. At the end of the day you took responsibility for and had to live with the consequences of you own actions/decisions. The kids unfortunately are forced, not only to take responsibility for their own actions, but more importantly have to live with the actions of their parents and the church. Forever.

[Bea Kiddo]

Bea,

I am sorry for that...that must be hard to work through on so many levels. I was actually kinda making a joke, but one that I knew had to be based in truth for so many, as kids in the SO are kind of a perpetual lower condition, aren't they, isn't that the evidence? Isn't that the experience? Isn't that the reality?
************************************************** ***********

Look, many here for whatever reason decided that they would join staff for a wide array of your reasons, probably most, if not all, were well intentioned. What I will never understand is how an adult, who lived outside the church, can see how kids are treated in the SO and not have some sort of reality breaking wake up call that permeates the thick brain haze the Scientology produces.

Do staff members actually believe that kids are little adults with the ability to fend for themselves and the duty to remain in exchange. If so, how do you get to that point....how do you look at a child and think that they are PTS? What warped sense of reality allows one to think that a child should be assigned a lower condition of liability, when all along the parent is a liability to the child in every sense of the word. When does that happen to someone?

How can one become so self-absorbed in attempting to improve themselves and their own spiritual pursuits that they are able to justify the piss-poor life they are providing their kids, let alone the life long trap that most kids will never really escape.

How does one get to the point where they have gall to claim personal wins while they are spending more time holding cans and learning about the latest escapades of a space alien than they do in with their own kids. At what point does that become OK in your mind.

How can anyone read the second dynamic and not see that the whole thing is a joke, a sham, hypocritical and out-ethics. Even if you do not have kids yourself, how do you see what is going on yet remain blind. What fundamental human value is replaced so that you can watch this but not react, or even be affected....or moved at the very least?

Many of you are lucky that you were able to just leave....sure it may have been hard and unfortunate and a little sad. At the end of the day you took responsibility for and had to live with the consequences of you own actions/decisions. The kids unfortunately are forced, not only to take responsibility for their own actions, but more importantly have to live with the actions of their parents and the church. Forever.


Wow. I think I love you.

Or at least we are on the same wavelength for sure.

[Free to shine]

But I found out that she named me as a PTS item all through her auditing. I was a CHILD. A kid WHO WAS NOT BEING RAISED BY MY MOTHER AT ALL. She took zero responsibility for me and raising me, and thus I ended up very out of control in her eyes. And she names me as her fucking PTS item.



Oh Bea....Oh! Words fail me.

I can relate just a little.....just a little. I remember the time my mother described some incident she had just run in auditing (!) where I had been a queen and she was my servant. I had no idea what she was talking about, and apparently during that life I wasn't very nice. :melodramatic: Perhaps it was an explanation for her feelings towards a rebellious teenager at the time, yet I was stuck with that concept for such a long time and rather distressed by it as you can imagine.

I know that doesn't compare with your story though. Perhaps it's the underlying concept that the PTS tech enforces finding an exterior 'blame' for a problem within ourselves. Having a handy child around to assign that label to makes it seem all the more ridiculous. There is no responsibility for the joys and trials of motherhood, a child is seen as a burden and a cause for personal challenges instead!

You are a remarkable lady to have be able to move away from that life and to stand back now and put it in perspective, because that's a bloody hard start!

[HillFlag]

Either sounds good to me Bea. Cheers. :thumbsup:

[RamsBlue]

... as kids in the SO are kind of in a perpetual lower condition, aren't they? ...

This bears repeating. Kids aren't "formally" in a lower condition, and sentiments vary from scn'st to scn'st, but there is a strong sense of "out-exchange" from kids. Hey, we are pouring all these resources into you (food and shelter) and getting nothing in return!

For me personally, my dad went to his grave believing that I was in a lower condition to him. This, despite the fact that I had worked on and off for him for years with little to no compensation. This, despite the fact that I was pulled out of school as a teenager to work for him in his various businesses. And so on.

The basic premise for it was that he truly felt I was out-exchange with him my whole life. That raising me was "a loan" from him to me and I was expected to pay it off, usually through indentured servitude.

I guess we are pretty off-topic here, sorry!

[Tanstaafl]

For me personally, my dad went to his grave believing that I was in a lower condition to him. This, despite the fact that I had worked on and off for him for years with little to no compensation. This, despite the fact that I was pulled out of school as a teenager to work for him in his various businesses. And so on.

That's sad.

There's rarely a child that gets it's exchange fully in with its parents, unless they end up looking after them in later years when infirmity or dementia sets in.

The concept of exchange is largely redundant for kids/parents. You get your exchange in when you raise kids of your own and it gets passed down the line. Putting kids in a situation where they feel out-exchange is making them guilty of an overt.

[Zinjifar]

That's sad.

There's rarely a child that gets it's exchange fully in with its parents, unless they end up looking after them in later years when infirmity or dementia sets in.

The concept of exchange is largely redundant for kids/parents. You get your exchange in when you raise kids of your own and it gets passed down the line. Putting kids in a situation where they feel out-exchange is making them guilty of an overt.

The problem (one of many) with Scientology's concept of 'Exchange' is that it takes a perfectly useful concept and then elevates it to an absolutist 'Natural Law' within the insane version of 'Ethics'.

It's simplistic and simple-minded and inevitably leads to inhumanity, abuse and roboticism void of any compassion, love or charity.

Unsurprisingly, Ron had an 'MU' on the subject of collaboration, which is what the family does best.

Zinj

[Tanstaafl]

The problem (one of many) with Scientology's concept of 'Exchange' is that it takes a perfectly useful concept and then elevates it to an absolutist 'Natural Law' within the insane version of 'Ethics'.

It's simplistic and simple-minded and inevitably leads to inhumanity, abuse and roboticism void of any compassion, love or charity.

Unsurprisingly, Ron had an 'MU' on the subject of collaboration, which is what the family does best.

Zinj

Before I was a highly impressionable Scn I was a highly impressionable Objectivist (currently I'm a highly impressionable Staten). Now, it's many years since I last read Atlas Shrugged, but I do recall thinking when the heroine was taken in and looked after in Galt's Gultch and asked to pay for her upkeep - "Aw, c'mon, you can take a principle too far!"

If Emma had received help from some gallant Aussie gentleman (yeah, right!) when she got a flat the other day, she would have been obliged to return the favor some how. What about the pleasure taken from a selfless or helpful act? Isn't a good deed its own reward?

There's little humanity left in Scn.

[Div6]

Before I was a highly impressionable Scn I was a highly impressionable Objectivist (currently I'm a highly impressionable Staten). Now, it's many years since I last read Atlas Shrugged, but I do recall thinking when the heroine was taken in and looked after in Galt's Gultch and asked to pay for her upkeep - "Aw, c'mon, you can take a principle too far!"

If Emma had received help from some gallant Aussie gentleman (yeah, right!) when she got a flat the other day, she would have been obliged to return the favor some how. What about the pleasure taken from a selfless or helpful act? Isn't a good deed its own reward?

There's little humanity left in Scn.

Remember this?

"Man cannot be trusted with justice. The truth is, man cannot really be trusted with “punishment.” With it he does not really seek discipline; he wreaks injustice. He dramatizes his inability to get his own ethics in by trying to get others to get their ethics in: examine what laughingly passes for “justice” in our current society."


Isn't this a perfect description of DMology?

Using ethics to enslave IS the Scn GPM.

[Tanstaafl]

Remember this?

"Man cannot be trusted with justice. The truth is, man cannot really be trusted with “punishment.” With it he does not really seek discipline; he wreaks injustice. He dramatizes his inability to get his own ethics in by trying to get others to get their ethics in: examine what laughingly passes for “justice” in our current society."


Isn't this a perfect description of DMology?

Using ethics to enslave IS the Scn GPM.

"Man cannot be trusted with Scientology"

[olska]

This bears repeating. Kids aren't "formally" in a lower condition, and sentiments vary from scn'st to scn'st, but there is a strong sense of "out-exchange" from kids. Hey, we are pouring all these resources into you (food and shelter) and getting nothing in return!

... [my dad] truly felt I was out-exchange with him my whole life. That raising me was "a loan" from him to me and I was expected to pay it off, usually through indentured servitude.

This attitude exists in many "wog" famlies as well, and in parts of the world where child labor is still practiced as "normal." Scientology adds a twist to this with its policies on "exchange" and "criminality."

I find the attitude of some parents that they must "get something in return" for their investment in their children completely foreign and bonkers, as the children who've been in my care brought so very much joy, beauty, wonder and blessings into my life that I shall be forever in their debt.

Hubbard grew up in a time in the USA when there was a much larger rural population, and many farm and ranch kids were put to work as soon as they could walk. My parents followed that practice. Their answer to the saying, "all work and no play makes Jack a very dull boy" was "all play and no work makes Jack a jerk."

I believe it is good for children to learn how to work, and to acquire skills that enable them to become independent, self reliant, and responsible when they are grown. Nothing builds confidence and self-esteem quite like competence developed at an early age.

BUT I believe this is part of the preparations for a child's eventual independence, not "payback" for the parent. IMO guilt trips laid on kids for being "out exchange" or in "lower conditions" only serve to make those kids feel unworthy and unwanted and undermine their growth into healthy and responsible adults.

Children are a sacred trust; whether they like it or not, whether they planned it or not, parents are duty bound by that trust the moment they become parents.

I've also noticed that in our current society very few people -- social workers, teachers, other parents, foster parents, ministers, etc. etc. -- have the guts to stand up and say the simple TRUTH to children who've suffered because of irresponsible or incompetent parents. What are they afraid of? undermining the "authority" of flaky parents??

So to all of you who were used, abused, abandoned, neglected, blamed for your parents unhappiness, named as the "why" on your parents' unresolved case or life, let me be one amongst those who WILL speak and say:

IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT. YOUR PARENTS DROPPED THE BALL. YOU ARE NOT NOW AND NEVER WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CONDITION.

[Div6]

This attitude exists in many "wog" famlies as well, and in parts of the world where child labor is still practiced as "normal." Scientology adds a twist to this with its policies on "exchange" and "criminality."

I find the attitude of some parents that they must "get something in return" for their investment in their children completely foreign and bonkers, as the children who've been in my care brought so very much joy, beauty, wonder and blessings into my life that I shall be forever in their debt.

Hubbard grew up in a time in the USA when there was a much larger rural population, and many farm and ranch kids were put to work as soon as they could walk. My parents followed that practice. Their answer to the saying, "all work and no play makes Jack a very dull boy" was "all play and no work makes Jack a jerk."

I believe it is good for children to learn how to work, and to acquire skills that enable them to become independent, self reliant, and responsible when they are grown. Nothing builds confidence and self-esteem quite like competence developed at an early age.

BUT I believe this is part of the preparations for a child's eventual independence, not "payback" for the parent. IMO guilt trips laid on kids for being "out exchange" or in "lower conditions" only serve to make those kids feel unworthy and unwanted and undermine their growth into healthy and responsible adults.

Children are a sacred trust; whether they like it or not, whether they planned it or not, parents are duty bound by that trust the moment they become parents.

I've also noticed that in our current society very few people -- social workers, teachers, other parents, foster parents, ministers, etc. etc. -- have the guts to stand up and say the simple TRUTH to children who've suffered because of irresponsible or incompetent parents. What are they afraid of? undermining the "authority" of flaky parents??

So to all of you who were used, abused, abandoned, neglected, blamed for your parents unhappiness, named as the "why" on your parents' unresolved case or life, let me be one amongst those who WILL speak and say:

IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT. YOUR PARENTS DROPPED THE BALL. YOU ARE NOT NOW AND NEVER WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CONDITION.

I second that statement.

Children are a trust, not a burden.

[Leon]

re Exchange and the second dynamic.

The error that many fall into with rgards to this is they collapse their concept of Time with regard to the dynamics. A human 1st D last about 70 or 80 years. A proper second dynamic - family AND sex and procreation - well it can last for hundreds of years (on my mother's side we can tack each individual back to 1503 and throughout that time various members have written descriptions of what family life is like at that time period. This is a tradition in the family and it makes the entire track of that 2D very real and accessible.)

A 3rd D, well Britain dates itself back to a few hundred or more years BC so that is a few thousand years long. Human life on earth (4thD) about 100 thousand years as somewhat sentient beings. Life on earth (5D) a billion or so.

You get the idea.

Now to go and shrink time and say that my 2D consists only of my this-lifetime involvement with it is plain nuts. It is only when you do this that you start viewing children as out-exchange takers. Get proper time back into it and you can clearly see that kids return the flow by caring for their kids when they have them, and so on, generation by generation.

The exchange is fully there when viewed over many generations. Not that kids shouldn't participate in and contribute to the survival efforts of the present family - that is a needed exchange too.

Out exchange would only be present if you had a great ride as a child and you let your own kids starve and grow up uneducaated and unable to function in society. That would be an overt.

[Zinjifar]

re Exchange and the second dynamic.

The error that many fall into with rgards to this is they collapse their concept of Time with regard to the dynamics. A human 1st D last about 70 or 80 years. A proper second dynamic - family AND sex and procreation - well it can last for hundreds of years (on my mother's side we can tack each individual back to 1503 and throughout that time various members have written descriptions of what family life is like at that time period. This is a tradition in the family and it makes the entire track of that 2D very real and accessible.)

A 3rd D, well Britain dates itself back to a few hundred or more years BC so that is a few thousand years long. Human life on earth (4thD) about 100 thousand years as somewhat sentient beings. Life on earth (5D) a billion or so.

You get the idea.

Now to go and shrink time and say that my 2D consists only of my this-lifetime involvement with it is plain nuts. It is only when you do this that you start viewing children as out-exchange takers. Get proper time back into it and you can clearly see that kids return the flow by caring for their kids when they have them, and so on, generation by generation.

The exchange is fully there when viewed over many generations. Not that kids shouldn't participate in and contribute to the survival efforts of the present family - that is a needed exchange too.

Out exchange would only be present if you had a great ride as a child and you let your own kids starve and grow up uneducaated and unable to function in society. That would be an overt.

If, for some ungodly reason, you insist on examining this in Scientology Terms, then, your whole concept of 2D is crazy. Geneology means *nothing* in Scientology. Your parents are nothing to you. Your children are nothing to you. You are an immortal thetan and 'family' is mere coincidence.

Ancestors are mere coincidence. Progeny are mere coincidence. Geneology is irrelevant. Inheritance (except for an estate that can be liquidated to pay for 'The Bridge') is nothing.

You are your whole track. That's it bupkiss :)

Zinj

[Leon]

You're talking about the phoney Scientology. I'm talking about the real one.

Get real.

[Jimmy Cricket]

You're talking about the phoney Scientology. I'm talking about the real one.

Get real.

How do you tell which Scientology is phoney and which Scientology is real?

Do a Doubt Formula?

[pomfritz]

You're talking about the phoney Scientology. I'm talking about the real one.

Get real.

Oh no, not this this specious defense again! The cherry-picking one that gets to justify any of the many failed/no results as attributable to some screw up/MU/overt/misapplication/SP. And the random "WIN" (aka, placebo/roll of the dice/statistical probablility) as sign of the true tech.

[Leon]

So you're a loser huh?

Well I'm not. I had a great ride in the subject and I would gladly do my time over again in the Org of that time. No hestation about that. Your crap is your own, not the subject's. They may have dished up shit for you but you are the one who swallowed it. I never did. I had huge gains, the best there was.

Best thing I ever did was to get into Scientoplogy. Second best thing I ever did was to leave when I did.

So suck on it, LOSER.

[Tanstaafl]

Oh no, not this this specious defense again! The cherry-picking one that gets to justify any of the many failed/no results as attributable to some screw up/MU/overt/misapplication/SP. And the random "WIN" (aka, placebo/roll of the dice/statistical probablility) as sign of the true tech.

Is the "tech" perfect? No.
Does it deliver everything it promises? No.
Have people had real and lasting wins? Yes.
Are there techniques that can help people in specific circumstances? Yes.

The tech is just words on tape and paper. How it is used makes all the difference.

A plane can be used to deliver aid or drop bombs.
You can kiss a person with nothing but your love for them or a desire to gain their confidence and then obtain all their cash.

It would be nice, perhaps, if everything was black and white. Those guys are good, those guys are evil. It's not like that. The story of Scn is more bizarre than any fiction I have ever read.

Is CoS run as a cult? Yes.
Is there valuable data/tech within the subject? Yes, if applied professionally and with the right motives.

[The Oracle]

re Exchange and the second dynamic.

The error that many fall into with rgards to this is they collapse their concept of Time with regard to the dynamics. A human 1st D last about 70 or 80 years. A proper second dynamic - family AND sex and procreation - well it can last for hundreds of years (on my mother's side we can tack each individual back to 1503 and throughout that time various members have written descriptions of what family life is like at that time period. This is a tradition in the family and it makes the entire track of that 2D very real and accessible.)

A 3rd D, well Britain dates itself back to a few hundred or more years BC so that is a few thousand years long. Human life on earth (4thD) about 100 thousand years as somewhat sentient beings. Life on earth (5D) a billion or so.

You get the idea.

Now to go and shrink time and say that my 2D consists only of my this-lifetime involvement with it is plain nuts. It is only when you do this that you start viewing children as out-exchange takers. Get proper time back into it and you can clearly see that kids return the flow by caring for their kids when they have them, and so on, generation by generation.

The exchange is fully there when viewed over many generations. Not that kids shouldn't participate in and contribute to the survival efforts of the present family - that is a needed exchange too.

Out exchange would only be present if you had a great ride as a child and you let your own kids starve and grow up uneducaated and unable to function in society. That would be an overt.

I like the way you think.

I am so glad someone else sees the generous exchange and hope our children provide us.

Mostly, our kids give us something else to think about besides ourselves.

That in itself is a gift.

Thank you for being sincere in your posts.

That's refreshing too!

You have a story to tell and I think you are telling it like it is.

If people didn't think your story was interesting, they would have already gone back to the library to check out a different book.

T.I.

[Veda]

So you're a loser huh?

Well I'm not. I had a great ride in the subject and I would gladly do my time over again in the Org of that time. No hestation about that. Your crap is your own, not the subject's. They may have dished up shit for you but you are the one who swallowed it. I never did. I had huge gains, the best there was.

Best thing I ever did was to get into Scientoplogy. Second best thing I ever did was to leave when I did.

So suck on it, LOSER.

It's not mainly about YOU.

It's mainly about OTHER PEOPLE.

There's only one of you, there are lots of other people.

Sadly, I think you just gave us a glimpse of the "real" Scientology.

When the goodness-coated&disguised core-darkness of Scientology inhabits a person, it damages his/her sense of conscience, and his/her sense of empathy for others - particularly, for "Wogs," "anti's," "Humanoids," "Natterers," "Downstats," "DBs," "SPs," etc.

Hope you can shake it off eventually. Others have.

As for the "second dynamic," how did L. Ron Hubbard treat his wives and children?

After all, he was the "Founder" and "Source."

[Tanstaafl]

It's not mainly about YOU.

It's mainly about OTHER PEOPLE.

There's only one of you, there are lots of other people.

Sadly, I think you just gave us a glimpse of the "real" Scientology.

When the goodness-coated&disguised core-darkness of Scientology inhabits a person, it damages his/her sense of conscience, and his/her sense of empathy for others - particularly, for "Wogs," "anti's," "Humanoids," "Natterers," "Downstats," "DBs," "SPs," etc.

Hope you can shake it off eventually. Others have.

As for the "second dynamic," how did L. Ron Hubbard treat his wives and children?

After all, he was the "Founder" and "Source."

Can anyone beat that for the "Most patronising post of the day" Award? :clap:

[Veda]

Can anyone beat that for the "Most patronising post of the day" Award? :clap:

It's nor patronizing; it's true. And you know it.

[Leon]

Bollocks.

Properly done, Scientolgy for the most part does what it claims. It is far from perfect, far from complete, but properly done it is yet beter than anything we have had before. I count that as progress.

It has also produced many may offshoots - e.g what Alan and others do. I applaud all of them for extending the boundaries.

I weep at the suffering it has caused some. It really appalls me to read about how others have perverted the subject and used it to harm. Yet I know from 38 years of personal experience in the subject that it does not have to be that way.

So why should I decry the subject?? Why should I malign Hubbard just because he was not perfect and came to a bad end?

The subject itself is good. What people have done with it is evil in the extreme.

[The Oracle]

Bollocks.

Properly done, Scientolgy for the most part does what it claims. It is far from perfect, far from complete, but properly done it is yet beter than anything we have had before. I count that as progress.

It has also produced many may offshoots - e.g what Alan and others do. I applaud all of them for extending the boundaries.

I weep at the suffering it has caused some. It really appalls me to read about how others have perverted the subject and used it to harm. Yet I know from 38 years of personal experience in the subject that it does not have to be that way.

So why should I decry the subject?? Why should I malign Hubbard just because he was not perfect and came to a bad end?

The subject itself is good. What people have done with it is evil in the extreme.

Beleive it or not, you do not have to apologize for finding benefit as a result of having a life.

Whatever it is that made you happy, makes me happy for you.

T.I.

[Veda]

Bollocks.

Properly done, Scientolgy for the most part does what it claims. It is far from perfect, far from complete, but properly done it is yet beter than anything we have had before. I count that as progress.

It has also produced many may offshoots - e.g what Alan and others do. I applaud all of them for extending the boundaries.

I weep at the suffering it has caused some. It really appalls me to read about how others have perverted the subject and used it to harm. Yet I know from 38 years of personal experience in the subject that it does not have to be that way.

So why should I decry the subject?? Why should I malign Hubbard just because he was not perfect and came to a bad end?

The subject itself is good. What people have done with it is evil in the extreme.

Leon, I think you mean well, but on the subject of Scientology, as the saying goes, "You can't handle the truth."

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=44387&postcount=1

[MarkWI]

...
Now to go and shrink time and say that my 2D consists only of my this-lifetime involvement with it is plain nuts. It is only when you do this that you start viewing children as out-exchange takers. Get proper time back into it and you can clearly see that kids return the flow by caring for their kids when they have them, and so on, generation by generation.
...

Agree.

I feel I should give support to my children in the same way or better of what I got from my parents.

What I do expect from them for my love and support is that they pass that to the next generations.

What if they don't? I can't force them nor want to. I do show them the beauty of life and prepare them for the world. There is a joy in being helpful to others.

I do feel that joy with them, and hope they will experience it too.

M

[Bea Kiddo]

So you're a loser huh?

Well I'm not. I had a great ride in the subject and I would gladly do my time over again in the Org of that time. No hestation about that. Your crap is your own, not the subject's. They may have dished up shit for you but you are the one who swallowed it. I never did. I had huge gains, the best there was.

Best thing I ever did was to get into Scientoplogy. Second best thing I ever did was to leave when I did.

So suck on it, LOSER.

Leon,

Please breathe and take a moment before posting messages such as this one. It is not neccessary to pick a fight here. We keep in with discussions. If you would like to take something up with someone directly, please PM. For this reason, I did report this post. I am telling you this so that I am up front with you.

Normally your posts are great and I love to read them.

Peace.

[Emma]

Hey Leon,

We try to keep it civil around here. Because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a loser. Defend your ideas and attack other's ideas but leave the personal insults at the front door.

Thanks,

Emma

[Div6]

Bollocks.

Properly done, Scientolgy for the most part does what it claims. It is far from perfect, far from complete, but properly done it is yet beter than anything we have had before. I count that as progress.

It has also produced many may offshoots - e.g what Alan and others do. I applaud all of them for extending the boundaries.

I weep at the suffering it has caused some. It really appalls me to read about how others have perverted the subject and used it to harm. Yet I know from 38 years of personal experience in the subject that it does not have to be that way.

So why should I decry the subject?? Why should I malign Hubbard just because he was not perfect and came to a bad end?

The subject itself is good. What people have done with it is evil in the extreme.

Take Bea's advice...breathe, Look around a bit. Veda is one of the dark shades here...can find nothing good in LRH's existence\creations at all. Which is fine, because he challenges beliefs and stable data and makes you look. And he doesn't ask you to sign a billion year contract... :whistling:

[Veda]

Take Bea's advice...breathe, Look around a bit. Veda is one of the dark shades here...can find nothing good in LRH's existence\creations at all. Which is fine, because he challenges beliefs and stable data and makes you look. And he doesn't ask you to sign a billion year contract... :whistling:

Div6 -

Comments - such as the 2nd sentence above - tell me that you still haven't read most of my posts, or most, or any, of the links that I post.

I'd ask to see your entire "Dark Shades" list, but I think it's best that you keep it to yourself.

[Div6]

Div6 -

Comments - such as the 2nd sentence above - tell me that you still haven't read most of my posts, or most, or any, of the links that I post.

I'd ask to see your entire "Dark Shades" list, but I think it's best that you keep it to yourself.

Veda,

I've read all of your posts. I've read every link you've posted as well. I find them fascinating. My "dark shades" list is very short, actually. Very, very short. As I have stated elsewhere and many times, I still find the "tech" workable and enlightening. Even after reading all of your posts and links. And you are correct, I should amend that second sentence, as you have acknowledged "white scientology" and early tech as being of some benefit. Thats what I get for posting before having my first cup of coffee, so I do apologize for that,

That is not to say that it does not stimulate critical thought, because it does, and I find that valuable. Thanks for your posts.

[Leon]

OK. I apologise for that.

[Mick Wenlock]

Bollocks.

Properly done, Scientolgy for the most part does what it claims.



really? Show me one clear who has perfect recall, an expanded lifespan, superior intelligence. Show me the evidence after 57 years of Dianetics that it achieves ANYTHING Hubbard claimed for it.

Show me the OT's.



It is far from perfect, far from complete, but properly done it is yet beter than anything we have had before. I count that as progress.


Better than what, exactly?



It has also produced many may offshoots - e.g what Alan and others do. I applaud all of them for extending the boundaries.


we can agree on that, I think. If Scientology has made a contribution, albeit a very small one (IMO) it is that people have been pushed to actually try and make something of it in a better way.



I weep at the suffering it has caused some. It really appalls me to read about how others have perverted the subject and used it to harm. Yet I know from 38 years of personal experience in the subject that it does not have to be that way.


Well I know that it does have to be that way. The type III's, the injustices, the awful conditions are not perversions by others - they are a direct result of the subject. Hubbard subjected people to horrifying abuse and manipulation.



So why should I decry the subject?? Why should I malign Hubbard just because he was not perfect and came to a bad end?


You should not. It is your right to speak out freely on the subject. Funnily enough a right that the subject itself does not support.



The subject itself is good. What people have done with it is evil in the extreme.

The subject "scientology" is inept.

[The Oracle]

OK. I apologise for that.

You're forgiven by me!

Entertainment on this forum depends largly on who you talk to or hear from.

If someone is bringing you down just put them on your ignore list.

Or take a break like Bea suggested .

I've had my moments of glad snaps followed by chariots.

When someone is trying to make nothing out of your ideas or life, trying to unmock you, it can be a big button.

Just see it for what it is and move to a friendlier thread / terminal to communicate to.

The purpose of forums can be for support and you can find lots of here too.

Best,

T.I.

[Zinjifar]

You're forgiven by me!

Entertainment on this forum depends largly on who you talk to or hear from.

If someone is bringing you down just put them on your ignore list.

Or take a break like Bea suggested .

I've had my moments of glad snaps followed by chariots.

When someone is trying to make nothing out of your ideas or life, trying to unmock you, it can be a big button.

Just see it for what it is and move to a friendlier thread / terminal to communicate to.

The purpose of forums can be for support and you can find lots of here too.

Best,

T.I.

ESMB is also a great place for 'button flattening'; a process that shouldn't be underestimated :)

Zinj

[Terril park]

really? Show me one clear who has perfect recall, an expanded lifespan, superior intelligence. Show me the evidence after 57 years of Dianetics that it achieves ANYTHING Hubbard claimed for it.

.

Why not check out my FZ success stories.

Try and rationalise them away.

[xrqpdx]

The subject of Scientology does have incorporated into it concepts that are workable. I think most if not all is borrowed and then extrapolated on. Which is fine too.

LRH Speaks of good control and bad control. There is no doubt that Scientology is mind control. If used in a positive way it can be good.

What's missing in CoS application of Scientology mind control is the serum, the antidote. They don't give the individual the keys to their mind's own control panel.

Most people in my experience use flawed logic when making decisions about the subject. It is either good or it is bad and they extrapolate from there. When in reality it simply IS.

A hammer is niether good nor bad it is simply a hardened weight at the end of a lever.

[Terril park]

The subject of Scientology does have incorporated into it concepts that are workable. I think most if not all is borrowed and then extrapolated on. Which is fine too.

LRH Speaks of good control and bad control. There is no doubt that Scientology is mind control. If used in a positive way it can be good.

What's missing in CoS application of Scientology mind control is the serum, the antidote. They don't give the individual the keys to their mind's own control panel.

Most people in my experience use flawed logic when making decisions about the subject. It is either good or it is bad and they extrapolate from there. When in reality it simply IS.

A hammer is niether good nor bad it is simply a hardened weight at the end of a lever.

My personal example was to redo data series so as to enable me to reject LRH datums. It worked.


From my website:-

PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTOLOGY

The fate of any piece of knowledge man has ever been able to learn about himself, his society or this universe has [been to] sooner or later become subservient to some special interest with a curve on it to make more slaves. And this is one time when as long as I’ve got words in my mouth and breath in my thetan - this is one time that curve isn’t going to happen. And that’s all I want your help in. We want to make sure that what we know never comes to serve some special interest for the subjugation of man.

All Dianetics and Scientology attempts to do is to undo the magic spell which has made people less than they want to be. And to do that it requires that some truth be known. And that the central and principal truths of man be know, merely as truths - not as pitches and curves to serve some different reason or purpose. And that information is its own best protector. If it is itself, if it is what is known, if it is what has been learned, then it undoes its own spells. And the only possible excuse we have for training anybody, for processing anybody is that Dianetics and Scientology will undo Dianetics and Scientology. And that’s the first time known in the history of man that a subject, if it ever curved down, could also go up - that a subject undid itself. And that would be true knowledge.

We must never let what we know get into a state whereby it itself is a tremendous numbers of 'now-I’m-supposed-tos.'

L.Ron Hubbard, c59118c, Final Lecture

[Veda]

I'm not sure if you qualify as "rejecting an LRH datum" by displaying an "LRH datum" about rejecting "LRH Datums."

[Dulloldfart]

I'm not sure if you qualify as "rejecting an LRH datum" by displaying an "LRH datum" about rejecting "LRH Datums."

How about using my False Data Stripping Robot (http://www.paulsrobot.com/FDSen) to FDS Scn texts?

Paul

[Div6]

I'm not sure if you qualify as "rejecting an LRH datum" by displaying an "LRH datum" about rejecting "LRH Datums."

:lol:

[Mick Wenlock]

Why not check out my FZ success stories.

Try and rationalise them away.

rationalize the irrational? I think not. Terrill - try proof, not success stories.

[Veda]

How about using my False Data Stripping Robot (http://www.paulsrobot.com/FDSen) to FDS Scn texts?

Paul

Well, it's not quite the same thing.

For starters, you're not just "displaying"; you're utilizing thoughtfully.

You're more like "the Grand Auditor of the City of the Pyramids," if I may borrow a phrase from Aleister Crowley.

And the idea of "False Data Stripping" - although the wording is different - can be traced to the works of Alfred Korzybski.

Most "LRH data," traced to their earlier sources, cease being "LRH data" and become something else, IMO.

[Dulloldfart]

Well, it's not quite the same thing.

For starters, you're not just "displaying"; you're utilizing thoughtfully.

You're more like "the Grand Auditor of the City of the Pyramids," if I may borrow a phrase from Aleister Crowley.

And the idea of "False Data Stripping" - although the wording is different - can be traced to the works of Alfred Korzybski.

Most "LRH data," traced to their earlier sources, cease being "LRH data" and become something else, IMO.

I see.

Although I'm not so sure I'm quite ready for that graal thing yet. :)

Paul

[Alan]

My personal example was to redo data series so as to enable me to reject LRH datums. It worked.


From my website:-

PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTOLOGY

The fate of any piece of knowledge man has ever been able to learn about himself, his society or this universe has [been to] sooner or later become subservient to some special interest with a curve on it to make more slaves. And this is one time when as long as I’ve got words in my mouth and breath in my thetan - this is one time that curve isn’t going to happen. And that’s all I want your help in. We want to make sure that what we know never comes to serve some special interest for the subjugation of man.

All Dianetics and Scientology attempts to do is to undo the magic spell which has made people less than they want to be. And to do that it requires that some truth be known. And that the central and principal truths of man be know, merely as truths - not as pitches and curves to serve some different reason or purpose. And that information is its own best protector. If it is itself, if it is what is known, if it is what has been learned, then it undoes its own spells. And the only possible excuse we have for training anybody, for processing anybody is that Dianetics and Scientology will undo Dianetics and Scientology. And that’s the first time known in the history of man that a subject, if it ever curved down, could also go up - that a subject undid itself. And that would be true knowledge.

We must never let what we know get into a state whereby it itself is a tremendous numbers of 'now-I’m-supposed-tos.'

L.Ron Hubbard, c59118c, Final Lecture



You quote a 1959 LRH datum on this board - that has 100's of much closer to now - real life repudiations of that quote!

[Dulloldfart]

You quote a 1959 LRH datum on this board - that has 100's of much closer to now - real life repudiations of that quote!

The first sentence of that quote about special interests and slaves looks pretty accurate to me, with regard to Scn anyway. :)

Paul

[Alan]

The first sentence of that quote about special interests and slaves looks pretty accurate to me, with regard to Scn anyway. :)

Paul



Heretic! :grouch:

[Terril park]

You quote a 1959 LRH datum on this board - that has 100's of much closer to now - real life repudiations of that quote!

True. I'm not interested in the repudiations, don't think with them generally
and I like this viewpoint.

You don't?

[Alan]

True. I'm not interested in the repudiations, don't think with them generally
and I like this viewpoint.

You don't?








PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTOLOGY

The fate of any piece of knowledge man has ever been able to learn about himself, his society or this universe has [been to] sooner or later become subservient to some special interest with a curve on it to make more slaves. And this is one time when as long as I’ve got words in my mouth and breath in my thetan - this is one time that curve isn’t going to happen. And that’s all I want your help in. We want to make sure that what we know never comes to serve some special interest for the subjugation of man.



The first part of the quote was negated by Keeping Scio Working!




All Dianetics and Scientology attempts to do is to undo the magic spell which has made people less than they want to be. And to do that it requires that some truth be known. And that the central and principal truths of man be know, merely as truths - not as pitches and curves to serve some different reason or purpose. And that information is its own best protector. If it is itself, if it is what is known, if it is what has been learned, then it undoes its own spells. And the only possible excuse we have for training anybody, for processing anybody is that Dianetics and Scientology will undo Dianetics and Scientology. And that’s the first time known in the history of man that a subject, if it ever curved down, could also go up - that a subject undid itself. And that would be true knowledge.



Dianetics and Scientology does not undo Dianetics and Scientology.

Dianetics and Scientology will if continued too long - solidify Dianetics and Scientology into a solid mass.

There are too many missing pieces in Dianetics or Scientology for it to fully work.

Alan

[Terril park]

Dianetics and Scientology does not undo Dianetics and Scientology.

Dianetics and Scientology will if continued too long - solidify Dianetics and Scientology into a solid mass.

Done in COS I'm sure you are correct.

There are too many missing pieces in Dianetics or Scientology for it to fully work.

This may be. But it does work.

You have just expressed your love for this path. You perhaps wouldn't
be on that path but for your early involment in Scn.

Alan[/QUOTE]

[Alan]

You have just expressed your love for this path. You perhaps wouldn't
be on that path but for your early involment in Scn.



Prior to Scio I was on a path - very shaky - but life was improving.

Scio helped, tremendously.

The SHSBC course and the great team of fellow processors and the combined research and development of us all was even more incredible.

LRH at that time was pretty awesome.

I'm still evolving :) Sometimes for the better! :lol:

Alan

[Terril park]

I'm still evolving :) Sometimes for the better! :lol:

Alan

Amen.

A nice wish for all. :)

[Alanzo]

Notice the lack of arrogance in this discussion.

To me, it is much more likely that the participants here have gained something valuable from what they have been doing.

Nice to see.

For me, at least.

[xrqpdx]

My personal example was to redo data series so as to enable me to reject LRH datums. It worked.


From my website:-

PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTOLOGY

The fate of any piece of knowledge man has ever been able to learn about himself, his society or this universe has [been to] sooner or later become subservient to some special interest with a curve on it to make more slaves. And this is one time when as long as I’ve got words in my mouth and breath in my thetan - this is one time that curve isn’t going to happen. And that’s all I want your help in. We want to make sure that what we know never comes to serve some special interest for the subjugation of man.

All Dianetics and Scientology attempts to do is to undo the magic spell which has made people less than they want to be. And to do that it requires that some truth be known. And that the central and principal truths of man be know, merely as truths - not as pitches and curves to serve some different reason or purpose. And that information is its own best protector. If it is itself, if it is what is known, if it is what has been learned, then it undoes its own spells. And the only possible excuse we have for training anybody, for processing anybody is that Dianetics and Scientology will undo Dianetics and Scientology. And that’s the first time known in the history of man that a subject, if it ever curved down, could also go up - that a subject undid itself. And that would be true knowledge.

We must never let what we know get into a state whereby it itself is a tremendous numbers of 'now-I’m-supposed-tos.'

L.Ron Hubbard, c59118c, Final Lecture

This quote seems quite noble on its surface and would be fine if it was practiced by its author and the ones he left behind to 'safeguard' it.

Now I think we all agree that the CoS is anything BUT what you quote above so I won't go into that.

LRH however was a total dual identity.

Evidenced by a declare order on Bob Musack from 1965 wherin the primary 'crime' was refusing power processing. This proves that LRH did not want 'self determinism' on one's 'route to freedom'.

This bears out when you look at the logic he supposes. All of his 'ethics' tech revolves around a core concept that Scientoogy as invented by him, is beyond reproach. YET, he quite clearly states that it is not perfect and is labelled 'workable'. He essentially admits it can be better. But to attempt to improve upon it is a high crime.

My only reasonable answer to this contradiction is that he flipped one day or that at a certain point it wasn't him authoring it anymore.

[Zinjifar]

My only reasonable answer to this contradiction is that he flipped one day or that at a certain point it wasn't him authoring it anymore.

Speaking as an outsider, I see no sudden 'break' or discontinuity in Ron's evolution. Sure, he got worse, both because of his drug usage and physical and mental degeneration, but, mostly, I think, from his success as rich, recusive cult leader. Us mere mortals are forced by circumstance to maintain at least minimal 'touch' with reality, but, Ron was surrounded by those who thought Him infallible and had the money to hermetically seal Himself from reality.

Too much 'control' is obviously not good for humans.

Zinj

[Jimmy Cricket]

Too much 'control' is obviously not good for humans.

Hmmm, "The Bridge to Total Control"

[Veda]

This quote seems quite noble on its surface and would be fine if it was practiced by its author and the ones he left behind to 'safeguard' it.

Now I think we all agree that the CoS is anything BUT what you quote above so I won't go into that.

LRH however was a total dual identity.

Evidenced by a declare order on Bob Musack from 1965 wherin the primary 'crime' was refusing power processing. This proves that LRH did not want 'self determinism' on one's 'route to freedom'.

This bears out when you look at the logic he supposes. All of his 'ethics' tech revolves around a core concept that Scientology as invented by him, is beyond reproach. YET, he quite clearly states that it is not perfect and is labelled 'workable'. He essentially admits it can be better. But to attempt to improve upon it is a high crime.

My only reasonable answer to this contradiction is that he flipped one day or that at a certain point it wasn't him authoring it anymore.

Hubbard - usually indirectly - desrcibed most of what he was doing to others, before - and sometimes while - he did it to them.

"PR is overt (displayed), Intelligence is covert," Hubbard wrote in PR Series #7 (And Hubbard's "Scientology ['dirty tricks'] Intelligence tech," by the time the PR Series was being written, was already mostly complete, and in full use. And even though the average Scientologist didn't know such a "tech" existed, he/she probably would have thought it justified. However, these same Scientologists would have been surprised to learn that this "tech" was also being used on them.)

And, in Scientology, "PR" is, ultimately, subordinate to "Intelligence," just as "Love" or "ARC" is subordinate to "Will" or "KRC."

That the "good stuff" of Scientology was placed, by Hubbard, in the subordinate category of "PR" is almost impossible for most well-meaning "tech people" to digest.

The historical record, going back at least to 1938, indicates that Hubbard always had a hidden agenda, or "real goal," of self-aggrandizement, while using as a disguise, "philosophy," "self-improvement," "a better world," etc.

That the "disguise" had some redeeming characteristics, IMO, makes it all the more confusing.

[xrqpdx]

Speaking as an outsider, I see no sudden 'break' or discontinuity in Ron's evolution. Sure, he got worse, both because of his drug usage and physical and mental degeneration, but, mostly, I think, from his success as rich, recusive cult leader. Us mere mortals are forced by circumstance to maintain at least minimal 'touch' with reality, but, Ron was surrounded by those who thought Him infallible and had the money to hermetically seal Himself from reality.

Too much 'control' is obviously not good for humans.

Zinj


You're probably right.



Hubbard - usually indirectly - desrcibed most of what he was doing to others, before - and sometimes while - he did it to them.

"PR is overt (displayed), Intelligence is covert," Hubbard wrote in PR Series #7 (And Hubbard's "Scientology ['dirty tricks'] Intelligence tech," by the time the PR Series was being written, was already mostly complete, and in full use. And even though the average Scientologist didn't know such a "tech" existed, he/she probably would have thought it justified. However, these same Scientologists would have been surprised to learn that this "tech" was also being used on them.)

And, in Scientology, "PR" is, ultimately, subordinate to "Intelligence," just as "Love" or "ARC" is subordinate to "Will" or "KRC."

That the "good stuff" of Scientology was placed, by Hubbard, in the subordinate category of "PR" is almost impossible for most well-meaning "tech people" to digest.

The historical record, going back at least to 1938, indicates that Hubbard always had a hidden agenda, or "real goal," of self-aggrandizement, while using as a disguise, "philosophy," "self-improvement," "a better world," etc.

That the "disguise" had some redeeming characteristics, IMO, makes it all the more confusing.

Yes the redeeming qualities, 'the hook' does make the whole process most confusing.

Is the 1938 record you speak of the letter to Polly? Only because I never knew if that letter was fully coaberated.

The PR series you speak of I don't think I ever did read either. Were these in the OEC? If not I wonder if anyone has a softcopy available.

[Veda]

You're probably right.

Yes the redeeming qualities, 'the hook' does make the whole process most confusing.

Is the 1938 record you speak of the letter to Polly? Only because I never knew if that letter was fully coaberated.

The PR series you speak of I don't think I ever did read either. Were these in the OEC? If not I wonder if anyone has a softcopy available.

The 1938 letter, a.k.a. the "Skipper Letter," is quite genuine, and is part of a large collection of other letters, and manuscripts, typed with the same typewriter.

The non-confidential issues of the 'PR Series' can be found in the 'Management Series' (a 'Green Volume'), and the confidential 'PR Series' issues, and other confidential writings, by Hubbard, on the subject of "PR" and also "Propaganda," can be found in various "senior" course packs on these topics. Parts can be found, also, scattered around the Internet.

The publicly available (non-confidential) Green Volume 'PR Series' is a mish mosh of writings, ranging from what Hubbard called "PR of PR" to "Black PR" to even a taste of "Dead Agenting" by way of tall tale-telling - see 'PR Series #18' in particular.

Since "PR" is the "mask" for "Intelligence," and the two work together (behind he scenes), it's difficult to appreciate how the "PR" and Propaganda "tech" writings fit into the scheme of Hubbard's Scientology without, also, studying its "Intelligence tech," most of which is confidential.

And by "confidential" is meant really confidential, not confidential but advertised, as are the "OT levels."

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=31490&postcount=3

[crm1978]

:yes:Interesting Question? I wonder how many of those book sales are the staff/public being given money sent to bookstores to buy lots of copies then recycleing back to bridge pubs to go back to the bookstores I love the story about bookstore staff finding the price tags still on the books coming from Pubs.It would be interesting to do a study where you gave a random group DMSMH to read then see how many finished it and what percentage started the bridge I bet the numbers would not be good.I read somewhere that 80% of the new people leave Scn within one year.The big question is what are the trends of membership .I gather that membership has been on a long and steady decline for a number of years