One of Marty's recent posts....

[Vittorio]

I wrote an email to Marty a couple of days ago and then this appears on his blog. Rather than respond to anything in the email and engage in communication, he has once again taken to his blog. How Marty can call anyone a dupe is beyond me, he worked for Miscavige for 20+ years and physically assualted people so he wouldn't lose his Scientology! Oh my! And now I'm working for Miscavige. Unlike Marty, I work for NOBODY. I never willingly became a slave in order to 'go free' and ran an organisation where others were expected to do the same. That comm lag Marty had with Martin Bashir is very telling.

And don't forget that some of those approved comments have been snipped.


False Report Correction
Posted on October 17, 2011 by martyrathbun09| 258 Comments
Some witting or unwitting agents of David Miscavige within the Freezone have been running a vicious black PR campaign against me of late. I use the alternative “unwitting” as they could simply be what L Ron Hubbard referred to as “dupes.” In the early eighties Hubbard wrote of unintelligent types who are false data prone. That means people who are so confused in life and about society that they are prone to accept any lie they encounter. The more energetic within the dupe category make a pastime of spreading such accepted lies as far and wide as they can – for a variety of reasons. They can be motivated by jealousy, vengeance, or just plain parasitism, attempting to raise one’s status by attacking someone who they consider more important than themselves.

The particular propaganda line that is getting some traction apparently in particularly out-ethics sectors of the Freezone is that I allegedly censor free speech. The story goes that moderators on this blog are wholesale preventing comments from appearing that might stir dissent.

Let me set the record straight. Here are actual statistics tracked and logged electronically by Word Press, the company that hosts my blog.

Total Comments: 117,808

Approved Comments: 116,166

That means that 98.6% of comments made have been approved and published. That means 1.4% of comments have been trashed.

Considering that L Ron Hubbard estimated in the mid-sixties that 2 1/2% of any given population were anti-social personalities, and modern mental health professionals estimate that percentage is up to about 4% in 2011 (sociopaths), I think one could conclude we’ve shown quite a level of tolerance here.

For those unaware of our moderation policy, please see the following post:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/blog-moderation-policy/

For those of you have read it and don’t want to read the entire post again, I’ll post here its two concluding paragraphs:

I treat this blog like my home. I entertain a wide variety thoughts and viewpoints. However, when an originator demonstrates it is a one way street and he isn’t really interested in learning something, but only in enturbulating or propagandizing, I show him the door.

Since OSA has had a well-financed, steadily-worked-on campaign going for more than a year to infiltrate my home and this blog with the specific objective of enturbulating me to the point where I start axing people ala Miscavige himself, I think by and large we’ve done pretty well keeping the ship pointed in the direction of moving on up a little higher.

[Vittorio]

I've included my email here. There are several typo's. I've blocked out one personal piece of information about myself, a personal piece of information about another and my name at the end. I've removed the names of the FZ group I used to go to as well.


Dear Marty,

I'm writing to you as a former Scientologist {personal information edited out}. I am
writing as I have been watching and reading the
activities of the Freezone for many years on the web including your own
blog. I have also participated in the Freezone, having received
auditing and studied here in the UK and in mainland Europe. My services
were from the {name of group removed}. The prices were reasonable, the services well delivered and the {name removed} were open and honest. They promote the idea of the 'golden middle' and don't advocate Scientology as the only
route, apply no pressure to people and have a generally good education
in other subjects, being well travelled individuals. When I expressed
that I might want to spend some time studying something else, they did
not berate me or sit me down to tell me I have "O/W's", they instead
sat down and told me about their own positive experiences with said
subject. Ethics was light and only used when needed. Most of their
students/auditors have never been in the Church and are a pleasure to
be around. There isn't hours of complaining about Miscavige.

This is where I am disheartened with your current movement and I want
to address you personally rather than go behind your back. You censor
your forum to prevent any dissenting voice from coming through, and the
few comments you do let through, you have the privilege of vetting and
deciding how to respond beforehand. I find what I read on your blog to
be remarkeably sadistic and akin to the bully boy tactics I witnessed
as a Church staff member. I would go as far as to say that you are
cluless about Div 6 activities and how to use TR's. An example would be
a young man who posted on your blog, who was not pro-Scientology and
who grew up as a child in the Sea Org. Rather than acknowledge or show
any understanding for the horrors that this young man probably went
through, you and your followers come down hard on him instead. One
response to him went something along the lines of 'refute something in
Dianetics as not being true'. He stated that his father or step father
was a clear who got colds and Dianetics stated that this doesn't
happen. Your response 'You obviously haven't listened to the Clearing
Congress'. He probably hasn't, but he is asking about Dianetics, not
the Clearing Congress! Right until the end of your conversation with
him he is REACHING! Even when he posts another question that is
contrary to what is your own viewpoint, he is STILL REACHING! and you
tell him 'not to bother'.

Now, you protest your own victimhood before the worlds media, yet you
cannot have a moment to acknowledge that a young person is broken by
their experience of growing up in the Sea Org. The difference between
you and that person is that you would have done anything for LRH tech
including physically assaulting people, lying to the media, harrassing
anyone who practises Scientology independent of the Church and
attacking all those who worked with Hubbard personally and witnessed
the development of Scientology first hand. Whilst you were breaking
into filing cabinets with Miscavige, THOUSANDS were walking out or
being declared from the Church. Many spotted the suppression back then
in the early 80's. You were part of the suppression. There are many
thousands who left who did not abuse people, who did not trick, harrass
and sue people and who only had the intention of helping mankind. Many
were loyal to the tech even though they witnessed Hubbards character
flaws first hand and knew his history was contrary to what he stated.

So, when someone comes to your blog and wants some answers and they are
not screaming and shouting, it is not a hard thing so say 'sorry' for
their experiences and that they are always welcome to a face to face
chat if it helps, that the door is always to them if they want the tech
again and that you are willing to honestly answer their questions. Your
comm lag to Martin Bashir was very telling. He was disgusted at the way
you tried to justify your beatings of other staff members and he is
right you cannot just lay it at the hands of Miscavige. The truth is
never entheta even if it's something we do not like. Hubbards ethics
and PR tech fails miserably when used to crush truth. You've seen that
over the past 20 years, if not in Hubbard's own lifetime. If you don't
confront and handle the anger you cause now, it will, like a damn reach
a breaking point at some point and cascade onto you. Society does not
like being ignored when complaining about injustics, just look at hoe
WOGS are putting ethics in on the Church and how it took critics of
Scientology to put ethics in on the Pierre Ethier and his extreme
arrogance.

Hubbard's research line included using clairvoyancy to attain
information off the akashic record, something that he was experienced
of doing during his time in the occult. Dincalci pretty much confirmed
this when describing how Hubbard looked when he was writing his
bulletins. Hubbard claimed to Jack Parsons that he was inspired by the
'Empress', his guide. No doubt, Hubbard had a telepathic connection to
some guiding force very early on in his life. The Holy Grail was a
message delivered to earth thousands of years ago. It showed mankind
the nature of the trap and how to get out of it. The early minoans knew
this as it was demonstrated in the way they buried their dead (although
they may have got GE and spirit confused). That message was stolen and
has been used ever since to control all fields of Science, Politics,
religion and media. The Holy Grail has two parts, the elixir and the
cup. The emphasis placed on which part will dictate how a group
behaves. The patriarchal or matriarchal aspect. Lots of Greek words
turn up in Scientology and curiously the level of OT3 contains lots of
occult archetypes. The OT levels may give man an opportunity to access
or undo some of the trap laid here on earth. Much of Hubbards occult
research ended up in Scientology. Whatever the case, you are not in a
position to tell people they are 'suppressive' or '1.1' or that they
should discredit Hubbard by not acknowledging his full character, which
was clearly a battle between helping people and his desire for material
things. As a carrier of the message, the Holy Grail for some time, I
felt compelled to write to you. Many people who are critical of
Scientology are not bad people. Many are good individuals who just
wanted to help and have been severely harmed in the process. You can
win people over with kindness, live and let live and by saying sorry.
Very few of them criticise David Mayo and Mayo was a Freezoner also.
Most of the critics of Scientology who were once 'in' remember him
fondly as being a person who was kind and honest. They cannot say that
from their dealings with yourself. The Church was not only bad to you
or those that agree with you.

Spiritual freedom is not guaranteed by Scientology, although it can
help it to be achieved as long as a person stands up to truth. The trap
is rigged. The GE's here on earth are waiting for a moment in the cycle
when all aspects of it fall into a certain level of alignment and a
hole is made which they can escape through, possibly at a time of
catastrophe (for a short amount of time at least, they will come back,
they always do, their game here has been to lengthy for them to let go
of). I would rather tell the truth and loose auditing as a result of
telling the truth than stick with lies and be part of a group. Your
very good at using tech on anyone that questions you, but you don't
seem to apply it to yourself. Remember this; 'only a degraded being
works for an SP'. You worked for one for over 20yrs. Thousands walked
from the suppression in Scientology the moment it fell on their heads
in the early 80's. You helped suppress people for 20yrs. Don't be
suprised if your criticised harshly publicly. If your group grows with
ex-Scientologists it has every possibility of reinstating
disconnection, fair game and heavy ethics. it's already starting to
happen to your blog. I have heard along the line that you have
disconnected {name removed}. Your applying to the FBI for help now. What
aboout all those people who fought against Miscavige in the 80's and
whom you helped to suppress? Who was around to help them before the
days of the internet? Caving in another soul comes with great
consequences. 'Doing it for Ron' does not make it OK. You have a window
of time in which you can help salvage people's faith in the tech by
making ammends with many and accepting that not everyone wants to
follow your road. I feel that you are still treating people badly and
ignoring the grave risk of leaving ARC breaks and connecting yourself
to souls trapped here on earth. Peoplewant reform, otherwise they
wouldn't be protesting.

This is a private email btw.

Regards,

{name edited out}
London, UK

[dianaclass8]

Vittorio:

I do not know if anyone else has confronted Marty with the facts as you have done so beautifully here. There is absolutely NO way that he can refute what you are telling him. So true!:thumbsup:

Calling him names or making fun of him is not the way to express what is happening. No.

Marty is re-writing history according to what it is convenient for him. It is his "true"; but not the truth.

And the truth is that him and DM broke into private files, he was DM's henchman for more than 20 years.

He alleges that MSH 'stepped down voluntarily', how can he think that we are dumb enough to believe that she would give David Miscavige just like that all of her husband's work of his whole life?

Easy.

Because there are some out there that believe whatever he says.

[Jachs]

I saw the post from Marty, i also saw a similar post of another independent blogger.

Expressing "ARC breaks" about Miscavige or OSA in the open ,accepted.

Expressing "ARC breaks" about Ron or Marty in the open, blocked.

I wish he would practice more of a win win philosophy.(i wish L Ron had of first)

At least a response (not an Ack) back to say here's my thoughts, i disagree because of this and this.

Be interesting to see if you get a response.

[Vittorio]

Vittorio:

I do not know if anyone else has confronted Marty with the facts as you have done so beautifully here. There is absolutely NO way that he can refute what you are telling him. So true!:thumbsup:

Calling him names or making fun of him is not the way to express what is happening. No.

Marty is re-writing history according to what it is convenient for him. It is his "true"; but not the truth.

And the truth is that him and DM broke into private files, he was DM's henchman for more than 20 years.

He alleges that MSH 'stepped down voluntarily', how can he think that we are dumb enough to believe that she would give David Miscavige just like that all of her husband's work of his whole life?

Easy.

Because there are some out there that believe whatever he says.

Diana, you are right. Making fun of people doesn't help at all. I remember Bob Minton's protests and he seemed to have real affinity for those guys sent out to demean him. But also, there are only so many times you can tell a person. Evidently, he does not want to hear my viewpoint or take up any of my points of view in a private email, he instead made a post on his blog.

Tell them once and move on.

[Vittorio]

I saw the post from Marty, i also saw a similar post of another independent blogger.

Expressing "ARC breaks" about Miscavige or OSA in the open ,accepted.

Expressing "ARC breaks" about Ron or Marty in the open, blocked.

I wish he would practice more of a win win philosophy.(i wish L Ron had of first)

At least a response (not an Ack) back to say here's my thoughts, i disagree because of this and this.

Be interesting to see if you get a response.

Jachs, the only response I think I will get is his very open post on hig blog designed to make an example of people such as myself before his followers who don't have the full information. Reading Tory Christman's response is very disheartening considering she has no idea who or what Marty is referring to, she only has his word. My email and possibly Diana's blog post as well as a few other criticisms here and there is what he takes great offence to.

I love Synthia's post elsewhere where she state's she 'wants the truth, no matter what it is'. I am committed to Tikkun Olam, no matter how I achieve it and what tools I use to achieve it and recognise that time is better spent on decent people who don't seem to behave like their ear is still in their jaw. There are much better games to be had than trying to engage with people who won't listen.

[Captain Koolaid]

What can you expect from Rathbun when you consider his blog policy?


I treat this blog like my home. I entertain a wide variety thoughts and viewpoints. However, when an originator demonstrates it is a one way street and he isn’t really interested in learning something, but only in enturbulating or propagandizing, I show him the door.

Please note that poeple coming to his blog are not supposed to consider different opinions, they're supposed to learn something. The arrogance of this dimwit is simply outrageous. Just like Hubbard he cannot tolerate any criticism whatsoever, so any appeals to question his actions are simply a waste of time.

[Free to shine]

Crikey Vittorio, that's some email! Good on you for stating your opinions.

One thing I did notice in the comments was the theme "well Marty did block one of my posts but..."

I think you put forth your views very well.

[Vittorio]

What can you expect from Rathbun when you consider his blog policy?



Please note that poeple coming to his blog are not supposed to consider different opinions, they're supposed to learn something. The arrogance of this dimwit is simply outrageous. Just like Hubbard he cannot tolerate any criticism whatsoever, so any appeals to question his actions are simply a waste of time.

Well said Captain_Koolaid,

I think I would have appreciated a personal response to my email and he could have taken up each point and given me originations from himself. I wouldn't have minded if he cited the tech for his reasoning, what I am finding it hard to grasp is that the tech is his reasoning. The email was confidential, but the only way I could show what was so irritating to him was to reproduce it here. My rebuttal hasn't been posted yet on Marty's blog and I'm not sure if it will. Truth is one of the toughest teachers we were ever blessed with. Any chance of 2 way comm it seems, is out of the question.

[Jachs]

Jachs, the only response I think I will get is his very open post on hig blog designed to make an example of people such as myself before his followers who don't have the full information. Reading Tory Christman's response is very disheartening considering she has no idea who or what Marty is referring to, she only has his word. My email and possibly Diana's blog post as well as a few other criticisms here and there is what he takes great offence to.

I love Synthia's post elsewhere where she state's she 'wants the truth, no matter what it is'. I am committed to Tikkun Olam, no matter how I achieve it and what tools I use to achieve it and recognise that time is better spent on decent people who don't seem to behave like their ear is still in their jaw. There are much better games to be had than trying to engage with people who won't listen.

I hear ya,

alot of us want to hear the truth, most i think want to know how deep it goes.

It looks like Marty is caught in a sandwich, hes admitted there is dissent from the freezone about his form of moderation, he has cut ties with well known independents who he considers 'non standard' and he is attempting to squash dissent again by alleging the posts blocked are from anti-social or socio-pathic personalities without evidence, but Marty is hoping his posters don't ask for evidence, its all on trust and that Marty knows best for them.

Marty has already proven he can bare face lie or 'plausible truth' when in Power as has Rinder.


Hes walking a fine line, the same as the church pr does keeping the lies hidden.

Marty attempts to suppress Hubbards lies, which tells me he didnt believe it when Hubbard said nothing can stop the truth, and I believe that nothing stops the truth even if hubbard re-thought he could, it comes out eventually, Bill Franks about blow phenomena, David Mayo about Rons obsession with money & NOTs, Nibs & the black magic, Otto about rons Rock Slams, Rinder and black ops, Purcell and Dianetics, Jesse Prince about Hubbard in control looting the missions, Rons life, cobs money spending & itll keep coming, despite sec checks, its inevitable.


I hadn't heard of Tikkun Olam- i just looked it up..

[Vittorio]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AtGpTqD0wY

At 4.24. This is what I am referring to with Marty and Martin Bashir.

[Lurker5]

Who knows, Vittorio, maybe your email made a dent in his unconscious, somewhere, and now it will bug him for awhile, disturb his peace, until he looks at it all again . . . .

That was a great email. Thanks for sharing that. :thumbsup:

[Sindy]

Marty is hanging from the thinnest thread imaginable. The only thing that's keeping him vaguely functional, is his desperate belief in the invented personality, LRH. Without that, he is just some jerk who was stupid enough to spend years being the runaround guy for an evil cult leader.While he has 'LRH' clutched to his breast, he's a man with a mission. Without LRH, he's a shiftless loser with nothing to show for most of his life - no employment history, no education in anything of value, no employer references - nothing. Underneath the bluster, he's hanging on for dear life to his sad faith in a dead conman; because in reality, he has no other obvious options. I hope he wakes up and decides to make the effort of building a life that's based on something real, but I'm not holding my breath, because he's taken on the role of being his own jailer. Stockholm Syndrome by proxy. Who would have thought of it?

You need to get real, Marty.


^^^^^ I think Marty is actually in very poor shape. If he was in really good shape, he wouldn't act the way he does.

I would think that everyone who wasted years in the cult has some of the above to deal with to a greater or lesser degree. They have to admit to giving a cult years of their lives.

It appears to me that how one fares after leaving the C of S, has everything to do with how much they are willing to seek out and accept the whole truth and nothing but the truth or whether they wish to stay in the deluded fog.

I was giving Marty some slack. The slack has been considerably tightened because of his response to me on his last blog.

There is a toll for Marty for choosing to go after Miscavige and for keeping his blog going with all the attendant baggage, including having to (in his mind) be the tough guy for his crowd.

Marty keeps his mind busy with all this stuff. He doesn't have the time or the luxury to seek out the truth and self reflect. There's too much at stake. He is "decompressing" right out in public view with nowhere to just slip away to, for awhile, to get some perspective. This is his choice.

[afaceinthecrowd]

Vittorrio,

Obviously your well thought out and well written email to Marty, The Teacher pushed a few buttons that knocked him off “The Great Middle Path” and he responded with his middle finger.

Marty is far too vested in El Ron and the “Tech” to ever loosen up, lighten up and look around. He is far too enamored with the Identity he has found and embraced to ever let it go.

Marty, The Misunderstood just wants to help all of the Flocked to see, as he does, through the Punks, DB’s and OSA Dupes so that they realize that hey are the Chosen Truly Sane. That approach works pretty good on some of the Indy’s as they are used to being the CTS as they are, after all, Scns.

He’ll probably trot out good ole Sarge soon for a few more tender moment stories of El Ron. The flocked CTS just luvs El Ron stories. :yes:

Hey, since Marty, The Open One says he lets nearly 100% of submissions to his Bog…er, I meant Blog…through, maybe I should send him over a few of my El Ron in action stories from Shooting Stars, just to be helpful and Flow Power to the Indy's. :biggrin:

Face :)

[Jachs]

Hey Face ,

you have made great contributions to dis-myth-ing ELRon, as has Challenge, David Mayo, Gerry Armstrong, Nibs, Jesse Prince, Veda, The Aberree, and many others ,one day there will be a movie of ELRons megalomania moments, keep digging em up for the script writer of 2moro.

[WildKat]

Originally Posted by Smilla
Marty is hanging from the thinnest thread imaginable. The only thing that's keeping him vaguely functional, is his desperate belief in the invented personality, LRH. Without that, he is just some jerk who was stupid enough to spend years being the runaround guy for an evil cult leader.While he has 'LRH' clutched to his breast, he's a man with a mission. Without LRH, he's a shiftless loser with nothing to show for most of his life - no employment history, no education in anything of value, no employer references - nothing. Underneath the bluster, he's hanging on for dear life to his sad faith in a dead conman; because in reality, he has no other obvious options. I hope he wakes up and decides to make the effort of building a life that's based on something real, but I'm not holding my breath, because he's taken on the role of being his own jailer. Stockholm Syndrome by proxy. Who would have thought of it?

You need to get real, Marty. (End of quote from Smilla)

This is what I would ask Marty if I ever met him face to face:

"Marty, for decades you lied to protect David Miscavige because you thought it was the greatest good. Can you admit that you're still lying to protect LRH's image because you feel you have no choice? The truth will set you free Marty."

[Gadfly]

False Report Correction
Posted on October 17, 2011 by martyrathbun09| 258 Comments
Some witting or unwitting agents of David Miscavige within the Freezone have been running a vicious black PR campaign against me of late. I use the alternative “unwitting” as they could simply be what L Ron Hubbard referred to as “dupes.” In the early eighties Hubbard wrote of unintelligent types who are false data prone. That means people who are so confused in life and about society that they are prone to accept any lie they encounter. The more energetic within the dupe category make a pastime of spreading such accepted lies as far and wide as they can – for a variety of reasons. They can be motivated by jealousy, vengeance, or just plain parasitism, attempting to raise one’s status by attacking someone who they consider more important than themselves.

That means that 98.6% of comments made have been approved and published. That means 1.4% of comments have been trashed.



Hubbard was right about "dupes". Hubbard was right about a great many things. But, the thing he never pointed out is that YOU, the Scientology Believer, is/were the DUPE!

Scientologists are carefully indoctrinated to be very "prone to accept any lie they encounter" from the lips of Hubbard. And many a lie has spit forth from the mouth of the Great Hubturd.

The Scientology machinery operates to "spreading such accepted lies as far and wide as they can".

And, Fair Game, as created and designed by Hubbard is nothing BUT "vengeance".

It kills me how Marty constantly "refers" to Hubbard, as if Hubbard's words and ideas are "the final answer on everything", and how much of a card-carrying moronic True Believer he remains. He would be almost pitiful if he weren't so arrogantly stupid (the common trait of the mentally-challenged Scientologist).

Hubbard well described and delineated a great many weaknesses of human beings, such as a "dupe". Look at how well he described the "fixed idea" and explained how it disables future learning because one "knows it all already". When the Scientologist reads this, he or she ASSUMES that wonderful Ron is inoculating one against falling victim to such a thing as a "fixed idea". But instead, while telling you all about them, he carefully filled the Scientologist's mind with a great many fixed ideas!

See, Hubbard did often describe flaws and weaknesses of Man, and then, though, inknown to the overly-trusting Scientologist, he USED THEM AGAINST YOU!

[Pooks]

Marty is an insane cultist with an IV koolaid line directly into the bloodstream.

That is all.

Marty---- LOL! What a retard.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6095/6260718785_6225a3cf7f_o.jpg

[loose cannon]

Interesting. Marty has let my 2 cents through.

Wish he thought about it a bit too, which I don't believe he has. :sad:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/false-report-correction/#comment-156632

[anonomog]

Hubbard was right about "dupes". Hubbard was right about a great many things. But, the thing he never pointed out is that YOU, the Scientology Believer, is/were the DUPE!

Scientologists are carefully indoctrinated to be very "prone to accept any lie they encounter" from the lips of Hubbard. And many a lie has spit forth from the mouth of the Great Hubturd.

The Scientology machinery operates to "spreading such accepted lies as far and wide as they can".

And, Fair Game, as created and designed by Hubbard is nothing BUT "vengeance".

It kills me how Marty constantly "refers" to Hubbard, as if Hubbard's words and ideas are "the final answer on everything", and how much of a card-carrying moronic True Believer he remains. He would be almost pitiful if he weren't so arrogantly stupid (the common trait of the mentally-challenged Scientologist).

Hubbard well described and delineated a great many weaknesses of human beings, such as a "dupe". Look at how well he described the "fixed idea" and explained how it disables future learning because one "knows it all already". When the Scientologist reads this, he or she ASSUMES that wonderful Ron is inoculating one against falling victim to such a thing as a "fixed idea". But instead, while telling you all about them, he carefully filled the Scientologist's mind with a great many fixed ideas!

See, Hubbard did often describe flaws and weaknesses of Man, and then, thoiugh, inknown to the overly-trusting Scientologist, he USED THEM AGAINST YOU!

Ah but Gadfly...
Hubbard lied but the tech works, the wins don't lie, Hubbard is a great man, he may have lied a little bit, Hubbard was a genius, he may have stretched the truth, Hubbard gave his life to bring us our wins, the wins are the truth, the truth....

[Smilla]

Marty should watch this video of the very brave and truthful Sharone Stainforth, if he wants to know something about the real Hubbard - as opposed to the invented construct, 'LRH'.

http://vimeo.com/2715857

[Voltaire's Child]

I'm sorry, but I don't see why any FZer or Indie should do that. Sharone is brave, she's been through a lot, granted, but she's quite scathing in her comments to FZers and Indies.

[FoTi]

Diana, you are right. Making fun of people doesn't help at all. I remember Bob Minton's protests and he seemed to have real affinity for those guys sent out to demean him. But also, there are only so many times you can tell a person. Evidently, he does not want to hear my viewpoint or take up any of my points of view in a private email, he instead made a post on his blog.

Tell them once and move on.

When talking to a wall, don't expect it to act any different than a wall.

[Sindy]

Marty should watch this video of the very brave and truthful Sharone Stainforth, if he wants to know something about the real Hubbard - as opposed to the invented construct, 'LRH'.

http://vimeo.com/2715857

LRH, The Invented Construct" - sounds like a good book.

I would love to see all of the LRH references on kids. Lotus posted something the other day re: LRH's policy on kids in the SO that was disgusting but no reference was cited or shown. If I had actual copies of that I could turn quite a few heads around.

This video is extremely helpful too.

[Smilla]

LRH, The Invented Construct" - sounds like a good book.

I would love to see all of the LRH references on kids. Lotus posted something the other day re: LRH's policy on kids in the SO that was disgusting but no reference was cited or shown. If I had actual copies of that I could turn quite a few heads around.

This video is extremely helpful too.

Paul Adams might be a good source for that info - he's very knowledgeable about Hubbard references. A tragic example of Hubbard's attitudes to kids in the SO, is the death of Quentin Hubbard and the circumstances that led to it :sad:

[BunnySkull]

I find it very telling that a civil email and maybe a blog post suddenly become a huge "smear campaign" being conducted against Marty by DM and his henchman.

Very telling. Talk about manufacturing crisis in order to keep his sheep tuning in and donating money.

[Pooks]

I just can't say it enough. Fuck Marty and the space ship he rode in on. I know as an Ex Scio that I should be more compassionate and more ... caring. But for Xenu sakes, Marty is a loud retard. I truly hope that he comes to his senses sometime soon and has a fucking cog and explains how evil Scn really is. I'm pissed off, but I understand, that Marty has taken the position he's taken. Scn is so fucking evil. We have a guy like Marty, who has the potential of being a truly wonderful example of getting out of a cult mindset. Unfortunately, Scn is so crippling to the mind that we have a guy like Marty, who without Scn would have been a nice man that made the world a better place, but instead we have Marty Rathbun, Indie Scilcn Retard.

Ugh!

Attention Marty and Mike Rinder! Read this is present time. I love you guys for what you are dong but really, you need to keep going with this unindoctrination of the evills of the cult.

Please don't stop looking. Read Gene Isene's blog and really keep on looking and keep an open mind. I really and truly know how hard it can be to face the truth about something I loved so deeply. Please don't be a know it all and know that "openmmindnnedness is a good thing. Please keep opening your minds, not only about DM but about LRh and about the subject of Scientology. Don't stop looking. Be strong and look at something you thought was impossible.

No matter how critical I am of you Mark, and you Mike, I just what to say that I am very proud of you for how far you've come in your Scn unindoctrination. Don't even stop. Don't take a pause. Keep on going. It's pretty unconfrontable, but you need to keep looking. Drop the arrogance, and look..

Hugs,

Patty Moher.

[dianaclass8]

I just can't say it enough. Fuck Marty and the space ship he rode in on. I know as an Ex Scio that I should be more compassionate and more ... caring. But for Xenu sakes, Marty is a loud retard. I truly hope that he comes to his senses sometime soon and has a fucking cog and explains how evil Scn really is. I'm pissed off, but I understand, that Marty has taken the position he's taken. Scn is so fucking evil.

We have a guy like Marty, who has the potential of being a truly wonderful example of getting out of a cult mindset.

Unfortunately, Scn is so crippling to the mind that we have a guy like Marty, who without Scn would have been a nice man that made the world a better place, but instead we have Marty Rathbun, Indie Scilcn Retard. Ugh!

Patty Moher.

Dear Patty:

I am sorry to disagree with you on this one, I am sure that Scientology did not cripple Marty, it is very clear that Marty crippled Scientology and scientologists all over the world.

He was already evil when he came to Scientology

He has a history of criminal activities inside the cofs for more than 20 years for heaven's sake!

And he has not changed! when he first came out and started talking to the media, I was very happy and it gave us all hope that the insanity would be stopped and people's lives would be saved.

But no...no...he had his own agenda, his own PR and he is working at it. He did not go for what is greatness, granting beingness and be pandetermined when he was in and he definitely is not going for now.

I can see him and his followers making cruel remarks towards others, I can see all of them allegedly "OTs" full of anger and his followers are impossible to communicate with. It is a total disaster! We have DM inside the CofS and M&M outside the CofS.

He has offended too many people; for starters the independents, who he harmed and prosecuted and then later stole their name, he offended the Freezoners who had hopes on him, and Anon, who really started the movement LONG BEFORE he came in the picture.

[Mick Wenlock]

Dear Patty:

I am sorry to disagree with you on this one, I am sure that Scientology did not cripple Marty, it is very clear that Marty crippled Scientology and scientologists all over the world.

He was already evil when he came to Scientology

He has a history of criminal activities inside the cofs for more than 20 years for heaven's sake!

And he has not changed! when he first came out and started talking to the media, I was very happy and it gave us all hope that the insanity would be stopped and people's lives would be saved.

But no...no...he had his own agenda, his own PR and he is working at it. He did not go for what is greatness, granting beingness and be pandetermined when he was in and he definitely is not going for now.

I can see him and his followers making cruel remarks towards others, I can see all of them allegedly "OTs" full of anger and his followers are impossible to communicate with. It is a total disaster! We have DM inside the CofS and M&M outside the CofS.

He has offended too many people; for starters the independents, who he harmed and prosecuted and then later stole their name, he offended the Freezoners who had hopes on him, and Anon, who really started the movement LONG BEFORE he came in the picture.


This reminds me of the fable/parable of the man walking on a mountain who finds a poisonous snake dying of cold. The men walks past and the snake talks! It says to him "Pick me up, put me inside your shirt where I can get warm. Do the charitable thing" and the man replies "You are kidding - once you get warm you will bite me and I will die" . The snake responds with "I promise, I promise I will not bite you for helping me - that would be silly, we would both die". The man thinks for a minute and picks up the snake and puts inside his shirt where it can be warm and continues walking. As the snake warms up, it bites the man who falls to the cold hard ground. The man looks at the snake and says "You promised me, you promised me" and the dying snake responds "You knew my nature and what I was when you picked me up"

Marty was an asshole in the cofS he happily and proudly stepped on people and their hopes and ideals.

And if you think he has changed since losing out to the other snake - well, you have been warned. He has his nature and he has not changed.

[Gadfly]

I just can't say it enough. Fuck Marty and the space ship he rode in on. I know as an Ex Scio that I should be more compassionate and more ... caring. But for Xenu sakes, Marty is a loud retard. I truly hope that he comes to his senses sometime soon and has a fucking cog and explains how evil Scn really is. I'm pissed off, but I understand, that Marty has taken the position he's taken. Scn is so fucking evil. We have a guy like Marty, who has the potential of being a truly wonderful example of getting out of a cult mindset. Unfortunately, Scn is so crippling to the mind that we have a guy like Marty, who without Scn would have been a nice man that made the world a better place, but instead we have Marty Rathbun, Indie Scilcn Retard.

Ugh!

Attention Marty and Mike Rinder! Read this is present time. I love you guys for what you are dong but really, you need to keep going with this unindoctrination of the evills of the cult.

Please don't stop looking. Read Gene Isene's blog and really keep on looking and keep an open mind. I really and truly know how hard it can be to face the truth about something I loved so deeply. Please don't be a know it all and know that "openmmindnnedness is a good thing. Please keep opening your minds, not only about DM but about LRh and about the subject of Scientology. Don't stop looking. Be strong and look at something you thought was impossible.

No matter how critical I am of you Mark, and you Mike, I just what to say that I am very proud of you for how far you've come in your Scn unindoctrination. Don't even stop. Don't take a pause. Keep on going. It's pretty unconfrontable, but you need to keep looking. Drop the arrogance, and look..

Hugs,

Patty Moher.

On Marty and Mike, once a shit always a shit . . . . :confused2:

[Gadfly]

This reminds me of the fable/parable of the man walking on a mountain who finds a poisonous snake dying of cold. The men walks past and the snake talks! It says to him "Pick me up, put me inside your shirt where I can get warm. Do the charitable thing" and the man replies "You are kidding - once you get warm you will bite me and I will die" . The snake responds with "I promise, I promise I will not bite you for helping me - that would be silly, we would both die". The man thinks for a minute and picks up the snake and puts inside his shirt where it can be warm and continues walking. As the snake warms up, it bites the man who falls to the cold hard ground. The man looks at the snake and says "You promised me, you promised me" and the dying snake responds "You knew my nature and what I was when you picked me up"

Marty was an asshole in the cofS he happily and proudly stepped on people and their hopes and ideals.

And if you think he has changed since losing out to the other snake - well, you have been warned. He has his nature and he has not changed.

I repeat, on Marty and Mike, once a shit always a shit . . . . :confused2:

[Smilla]

Marty's Indiezone Cult is a Cult. It used to be thought that once people were out of the Cof$, that they were safe from the Cult experience and it's damaging effects. This is no longer the case. Scientology mind control is alive and well outside of the Cof$.

[Mark A. Baker]

Marty's Indiezone Cult is a Cult. ...

No argument there.



... It used to be thought that once people were out of the Cof$, that they were safe from the Cult experience and it's damaging effects.

Can't imagine where you got that idea, Smilla. You assign far too much importance to the Co$.

Cults are very much a part of human experience. Membership in one does not preclude subsequent membership in another. Were it so there would be no religious conversions.

The decision to depart a cult does not necessarily end an individual's personal experience of involvement with the prior cult or his subsequent willingness to be involved with other cults.



... This is no longer the case. ...

It never was. :no:


Mark A. Baker

[Lure Rob & Hyde]

Vittorio:

I do not know if anyone else has confronted Marty with the facts as you have done so beautifully here. There is absolutely NO way that he can refute what you are telling him. So true!:thumbsup:

Calling him names or making fun of him is not the way to express what is happening. No.

Marty is re-writing history according to what it is convenient for him. It is his "true"; but not the truth.

And the truth is that him and DM broke into private files, he was DM's henchman for more than 20 years.

He alleges that MSH 'stepped down voluntarily', how can he think that we are dumb enough to believe that she would give David Miscavige just like that all of her husband's work of his whole life?

Easy.

Because there are some out there that believe whatever he says.


You have pinpointed Marty's hypocrisy with laser preciseness !!
"Wrathbunny" as I prefer to call him is a pompous self appointed would be leader of the ex=church members of the cult.
I have not ever seen him express any real contrition for his felonious acts committed to please himself & Misscabage.
He is good at crocodile tears though like he exibited in Germany recently in the televised interview.
Yes definitely a reptilian yellow streak on this BOY!
He enjoyed being the hitman for Misscabage as you can see by the pleasure on his face in the photos throughout the years he was destroying the lives of objectors .

Wrathbunny is really a cartoon that has nothing to do with reality but rather putting himself in the limelight for self agrandizement while seeking to forbid any discussion of his unsavory past.
He admits to beating other mentaly retarded cult staff like he had a cup of coffee that day.
He was just a brutal orderly in an insane asylum when not leaving the premises to commit federal crimes and violate the civil rights of percieved enemies.
The only precedent for this scumbacket is in the Nuremburg Trials where the defendants stated"I "vas" only following orders! "

OK let's try to speak his language .
Marty your only recourse is to say the following:

"I vas only following Elron 's orders with a sharp stick in my back held by Misscabage.
No that's is not true cause I really enjoyed messing up those disobedient cult idiots
to the best of pleasure I could get from it.
( OK Marty now you shed a few tears like you did in Germany for dramatic effect! )

I can't believe this Marty guy no matter how much I try!!!!!!:no:

[Vittorio]

Hubbard was right about "dupes". Hubbard was right about a great many things. But, the thing he never pointed out is that YOU, the Scientology Believer, is/were the DUPE!

I disagree with this. It's not the Scientology believer that is neccesarily the dupe. I feel the dupe would be the person who acts on orders, no questions asked. There are many people in Scientology who did not do this. Look at how well remembered David Pomeranz is compared to Jeff Pomeranz. Because David is a Scientologist, doesn't make him a dupe. He's a good person and liked by many and probably gets a completely different service to what 'joe public' is getting. Marty was happy to beat people because he had the carrot of his eternity hanging in his face. Marty, you thought spiritual eternity was there for you, even if you assaulted people? And you knew there was Independent Scientology for decades so you could have left in, er 1981! I met many good people who were Scientologists who stood up to things when they were wrong and had the courage to do so, even if it meant lossing friends and so-called 'eternity'. Full on critics are not immune to being dupes themselves. I have seen a youtube video where two men were abusing two Scientology staff members, one I know personally and the way they went about it was extremely nasty and I don't agree with that behaviour and I don't support it because people who behave that way HAVE NO LOYALTY AND CAN TURN ON ANYONE once their current subject has been chewed up and spat out.


Scientologists are carefully indoctrinated to be very "prone to accept any lie they encounter" from the lips of Hubbard. And many a lie has spit forth from the mouth of the Great Hubturd.

The Scientology machinery operates to "spreading such accepted lies as far and wide as they can".

And, Fair Game, as created and designed by Hubbard is nothing BUT "vengeance".

It kills me how Marty constantly "refers" to Hubbard, as if Hubbard's words and ideas are "the final answer on everything", and how much of a card-carrying moronic True Believer he remains. He would be almost pitiful if he weren't so arrogantly stupid (the common trait of the mentally-challenged Scientologist).!

It's very hard to get to the truth of Hubbard. There are people who criticise with truth and others who just wish to blacken his name with garbage. It's really important to be careful what we say about others as rubbishing another persons personality is (to me) a poor personality trait. In my email to Marty I attempted to engage with him, I acknowledged that I believe in some aspects of the tech and spiritual entrapment, as KNOWN by an EARLIER civilisation here on earth.

There is a thing called 'as-is' in Scientology and we are on this message board now to as-is the many things we were not able to for years.


Hubbard well described and delineated a great many weaknesses of human beings, such as a "dupe". Look at how well he described the "fixed idea" and explained how it disables future learning because one "knows it all already". When the Scientologist reads this, he or she ASSUMES that wonderful Ron is inoculating one against falling victim to such a thing as a "fixed idea". But instead, while telling you all about them, he carefully filled the Scientologist's mind with a great many fixed ideas!

See, Hubbard did often describe flaws and weaknesses of Man, and then, though, inknown to the overly-trusting Scientologist, he USED THEM AGAINST YOU!

Your right there Gadfly and I just looked at an old copy of Self Analysis and Tone 4.0 is described as 'Search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality, changes reality'. I remember one Scientologist in East Grinstead saying to me 'If it isn't Scientology, it doesn't work before describing some other practise she was off to do in Germany to handle her 'body problem'! We have to use our intuition at times, it's a very powerful thing.

[Vittorio]

Marty is an insane cultist with an IV koolaid line directly into the bloodstream.

That is all.

Marty---- LOL! What a retard.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6095/6260718785_6225a3cf7f_o.jpg

Patty,

I understand your anger. I really do. There's nothing like coming off a scary ride and thinking it's all over, only to be hit by a car!

But it's not worth getting angry over or by posting pictures like that. Marty offered people auditing (according to Mark Bunker) in exchange for what they felt it is worth. I can't say how these guys feel after their auditing, I got benefit out of some of mine but not all of it. The ones whose posts we can see on Marty's blog seem to be happy. Thats their business if they want to accept that and accept it from Marty.

What I didn't like is that a young former Cadet Org member could be shown so little understanding on that blog and that reasonable posts could not get through to the blog. I've raised the issue now, going on about it is not going to produce a miracle, as someone else (Jachs I think?) said, my communication and possibly others will impinge on him in another time and place.

[Vittorio]

Interesting. Marty has let my 2 cents through.

Wish he thought about it a bit too, which I don't believe he has. :sad:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/false-report-correction/#comment-156632

Yes, I noticed that, but neither of my posts made it through! I assume I am banned from Martyworld! I am too entheta, but the email is here on this thread. I believe a lot of internet lurkers visit both of these sites. Most people ARE good and we should never underestimate people's intelligence when it comes to decision making. They can come here and have a look and make their own informed decisions. I don't see how this type of Dead Agenting will bring good results.


When talking to a wall, don't expect it to act any different than a wall.

Hubbard described it as 'The atom wants no communication'.


LRH, The Invented Construct" - sounds like a good book.

I would love to see all of the LRH references on kids. Lotus posted something the other day re: LRH's policy on kids in the SO that was disgusting but no reference was cited or shown. If I had actual copies of that I could turn quite a few heads around.

This video is extremely helpful too.

I wanted to reply to this with comments from Rathbun's blog which were relevant to my email. I could not find them when I was trawling through. When that guy posted about being unhappy in the Sea Org and his childhood, one of Marty's followers posted with 'Lrh said children should have blah blah'. Doesn't mean that said reference was applied in the case of these Cadet Org kids. If anyone knws where to find this on Marty's blog then please let me know.


I find it very telling that a civil email and maybe a blog post suddenly become a huge "smear campaign" being conducted against Marty by DM and his henchman.

Very telling. Talk about manufacturing crisis in order to keep his sheep tuning in and donating money.

Manufactured crisis this is! But look at how protesters against the Church are accused of as 'being paid for by psychs'. Now, if you say anything not to Marty's liking, you are 'working for Miscavige'. Build a common enemy and make them responsible for the anger you cause!

[Lurker5]

I repeat, on Marty and Mike, once a shit always a shit . . . . :confused2:

:roflmao: :hysterical: Wish there was an icon for slap my ass, that is funny . . .

:horse: :scnsucks:

[Lurker5]

Marty 'projects' all his own stuff onto others . . . . No self insight, no ability for self perception, or self introspection. He cannot own his own shit. Such is the 'scno psych' . . .

He has one hell of a huge mountain to climb, to get out of that valley of death . . . But I do not feel sorry for him. :no: All he has to do is LOOK. He is free - all he has to do is grab it, and walk away.

We all end up, sooner or later, with our whole lives taken down. It is a door to new opportunity and growth, if one looks at it from that perspective. And folks who went through the Great Depression had it worse, and came out of it. Life went on. Life moves on.

[Vittorio]

Marty 'projects' all his own stuff onto others . . . . No self insight, no ability for self perception, or self introspection. He cannot own his own shit. Such is the 'scno psych' . . .

He has one hell of a huge mountain to climb, to get out of that valley of death . . . But I do not feel sorry for him. :no: All he has to do is LOOK. He is free - all he has to do is grab it, and walk away.

We all end up, sooner or later, with our whole lives taken down. It is a door to new opportunity and growth, if one looks at it from that perspective. And folks who went through the Great Depression had it worse, and came out of it. Life went on. Life moves on.

Good post Lurker5


Also, since starting this thread, I have been wondering....

If Marty wants to use stats, maybe we should look at the growth of Scientology pre 81 and after 81. I wonder whether it is a true statement that those involved with Scientology before 81 have a greater deal of loyalty to the tech than those involved after 81. Would it be fair to say that the growth of Scientology was stunted under Rathbun's leadership and that far fewer people have positive experiences with it? I've heard MANY times people say that in the 70's their mission and Org was booming and had X amount of staff and was mostly fun to be around, but after 85, the people had halved and the auditing was more expensive. If anyone has anything in writing or documents which show a steep decline in Scientology during that period, please feel free to share them. There is a poll on this site asking people when they got into Scientology and a huge amount got involved in the 70's.

...but we know who he will blame.

[Gadfly]

Good post Lurker5


Also, since starting this thread, I have been wondering....

If Marty wants to use stats, maybe we should look at the growth of Scientology pre 81 and after 81. I wonder whether it is a true statement that those involved with Scientology before 81 have a greater deal of loyalty to the tech than those involved after 81. Would it be fair to say that the growth of Scientology was stunted under Rathbun's leadership and that far fewer people have positive experiences with it? I've heard MANY times people say that in the 70's their mission and Org was booming and had X amount of staff and was mostly fun to be around, but after 85, the people had halved and the auditing was more expensive. If anyone has anything in writing or documents which show a steep decline in Scientology during that period, please feel free to share them. There is a poll on this site asking people when they got into Scientology and a huge amount got involved in the 70's.

...but we know who he will blame.

I explained this on another thread recently. There were two things going on as Scientology "evolved" from the sixties through the 1980s.

1. While things like the basic auditing processes stayed pretty much the same, such as Life Repair, Drug Rundown, R3R dianetics, Objectives, the Grades, the Expanded Grades, and while many, myself included, enjoyed them (quite a great deal actually), the "bridge" was being added to and changed (Purif, Happiness R/D, Key to Life, etc), but especially the OT levels (the introduction of OT Drug R/D, NOTs and SOLO NOTs and the removal of the "old super-duper Creation of Human Ability OT 4-6).

2. Consolidation of power throughout the Scientology organization began in earnest in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Watchdog Committee was created, along with the MANY WDC missions that were sent out to orgs in that period. The Finance N/W with "Finance Dictators" began, and that became the Mission Holders conference along with other actions that decimated much of the existing Scientology scene.

The GREATEST change was the ever increasing implementation of "LRH organizational control" from the Sea org on down. To the degree that Hubbard gained better and more complete control of all things throughout the Scn system, and to the degree that MANAGEMENT became more involved on a daily and weekly basis with the orgs and missions, to THAT degree tha INSANITY increased in DIRECT PROPORTION.

Yes, the insane LRH policies on how to "control Scientology" mostly existed right from the beginning. BUT, and this is a HUGE "but", in many orgs and missions up until the late 1970s, many of them simply chose to IGNORE many of the nuttier ones.

Really, Rathbun or Miscavige, or whoever were insignificant in the overall scheme of things. To the degree that Hubbard's vision of "from the top down HEAVY CONTROLLED micro-management" came to be, regardless of WHO exactly were the players, so Scientology came to be more and more NOT "fun" and to "suck". I got involved in 1976, and I saw it happen right before my eyes. I was in the Flag Reg N/W and in the Sea Org by the end of 1976, and I had in interesting vantage point.

Yes, of course Hubbard's crazy control operations were always running, BUT on a much smaller scale. Hubbard needed to get in place a very different management system, with CMOs at all levels, and many other networks, to be able to spread out his idea of "total control". That simply didn't begin to exist until the early 1980s. New versions of the org board were always coming out, with new networks and new posts. Between 1978 through 1984 was a constant change of "new lines of senior management".

Before the late 1970s, when things like "no verbal data" came out, there was a higher degree of disagreement tolerated at the LOCAL levels. Yes, it was always insane close to LRH in the Sea Org, and getting "closer to Ron" is what happened with the orgs and missions as management "evolved".

It seems that as long as people could pretty much do as they chose, without the watchful close eye of Hubbard and management, more or less simply "delivering auditing", for many people it WAS "fun". To the degree that management became more involved, with the Sea Org, and Hubbard's vision of "total control", THEN things really started to "go down hill".

THAT is the WHY. Not Marty, not Miscavige. Any PAWNs could have played their roles in Hubbard's consolidation of control through management between about 1978 through 1984. The tendency for Scientology to become MORE crazy and "less fun" was/is directly proportional to the degree that Hubbard's "management policies", including severe ethics and justice, were put more into action in any org or mission. That is why so many LEFT with the WDC missions and Finance Police missions of that era. The orgs and missions often did better and were "more fun" because they WERE NOT so "close to Hubbard's vision of Scientology management". The truth is that the orgs and missions did better because they refused to follow Hubbard's exact management policies!

This has been a constant dilemma of Scientology, The "good aspects of the auditing" versus the insanely crazy aspects of ANY FORM OF SCIENTOLOGY MANAGEMENT. Some people make the gross mistake of viewing Miscavige as the "why" for explaining how it is that Scientology management has gone awry. But, the REAL WHY is that ANY VERSION of "Scientology management", containing as it does so much stupidly at the basic "policy level", is so severely flawed and renders the whole Scientology experience "pure bullshit".

In the early days it was often VERY LOOSE. There were no actual "cookie-cutter" models in every org and mission, as there are today. Hubbard's Scientology management destroyed diversity by eradicating all "individual decision points" but also by destroying all "individual creation points". Roteness INCREASED at every level from the 1970s through the 1980s.

To a degree, today in Scientology, it is like McDonalds, or Pizza Hut, or Burger King. You can walk into ANY of them in ANY city, and they are almost exactly the SAME.

Now, while it was probably always Hubbard's intention to implement such burdening control at every level of Scientology, before that happened, before the 1980s, many orgs and missions simply were NOT "following organizational policy" to any great degree. And THAT is why they may have been "more fun" as compared to the deadness of the modern Scientology experience.

Also, with all the "gloss" and "marketing" that was added since the late 1970s, Scientology became grossly "flambouyant", exceedingly superficial and "plastic". IN the early days, while of course there WAS "promotion", it wasn't the constant endless stream of slick Madison Avenue schtick that one sees today. Scientology promotion is just so over-the-top. Again, Hubbard always wanted it to be that way, but in the early days it wasn't so much because of a lack of control, printing technology and money. So again, what really changed from the late 1970s is that HUBBARD'S own VISIONS and INTENTIONS for management became more and more a reality. And THAT is WHY it came to SUCK more and more over time.

To the degree that some person or group could keep Hubbard's management at bay is to what degree the Scientology experience may have maintained "some fun".

As I see it, as I have said before, I can envision a version of Scientology that could be "fun", but of course, it would have to remove itself VERY FAR from Hubbard's management system and management THEORIES!

The changes in auditing tech, while evolving and changing over time to some degree, is minor in comparison to the leaps and bounds the MANAGEMENT SYSTEM changed over the same time period.

That people like Marty try to blame a person (DM) instead of the SYSTEM ITSELF is absurd. The ONLY person to truly "blame" is the guy who created the management system - Hubbard.

[Veda]

Good post Lurker5


Also, since starting this thread, I have been wondering....

If Marty wants to use stats, maybe we should look at the growth of Scientology pre 81 and after 81.

-snip-



Here are the stats on numbers of Clears from 1965 to 1978. Reference, which appears to be accurate in this case, is the first (1978) edition of 'What is Scientology?'. To ascertain the number of Clears for a given year, subtract the above number from the below number.:

1966: 172

1967: 725

1968: 1661

1969: 2879

1970: 3248

1971: 3665

1972: 4028

1973: 4574

1974: 5167

1975: 5716

1976: 6312

1977: 6601

1978: 6879

So, in 1968, 726 Clears were certified. In 1969, 1,218 Clears were verified. And in 1973, 546 Clears were certified. And in 1978, 278 Clears were certified.

Here's a snapshot of a little bit of 1977:

In January, LRH delighted Scientologists by telling them that "OT VIII has been in existence all these years," and there are "a very large number of OT grades" above OT VIII. Things became slightly more somber in February 1977 when the Commodore presented Scientologists with the HCOB 'Jokers and Degraders', followed by the March 1977 HCOB, 'The Gambler' (Here's a rare photo of LRH doing research into gambling)http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/images/michael-douglas3.jpg, followed in May by 'LSD, Years after they have come off of', which introduced the "Sweat program," which required wearing a rubber suit and running around.

The formal "Sweat program" was further described in the HCOB 'LSD and the Sweat program' of February 1978.

From 'LSD, Years after they have "come off of" LSD':

"Apparently they have become some sort of vegetable or zombie to a greater or lesser degree." Hubbard was describing what were often the most productive and creative people in Scientology (who had experimented with LSD before Scientology) as "vegetables or zombies to a greater or lesser degree." That reduced enthusiasm slightly.

Eventually, the "Sweat Program" became the more marketable "Purification Rundown," with the "Purif" meant for everyone.

Remember the hype for the Purif? "Only Scientologists who've done the Purif will survive World War III."

It was promoted along with the book, 'All About Radiation', which was "written by a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor," with Hubbard being the nuclear physicist.

Then came 1979, and (sometimes perplexed but nonetheless) VVVGIs Scientologists were attesting to Dianetic Clear by the busload, and rushing to Flag to start NOTs, which would remove the final barrier to full OT, just as OT 3 had done, and just as the old Clearing Course had done...

[Gadfly]

Remember the hype for the Purif? "Only Scientologists who've done the Purif will survive World War III."

It was promoted along with the book, 'All About Radiation', which was "written by a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor," with Hubbard being the nuclear physicist.



:hysterical:

Hubbard being the nuclear physicist . . . .

:hysterical:

It just KILLS ME how Hubbard continually MADE UP shit and made up his own "credentials".

"Book One" of All About Radiation is "by Medicus". Who the FUCK is Medicus???? :confused2:

The first section was OBVIOUSLY written by Hubbard, and Hubbard LIED and PRETENDED to have had it written by this guy named "Medicus". Hubbard simply made it APPEAR that way in some lame attempt to attach more "legitimacy" to "his book".

How the hell does Marty and similar idiots explain such absurdities? Of course, they don't. They IGNORE them and pretend that they don't exist. They bury their collective heads in the sand of denial.

[Veda]

'All About Radiation' was first published in 1957.

http://urss.ru/covers_ru/33953.gif
http://www.lermanet.com/images/all-about-radiation.jpg

[Vittorio]

Here are the stats on numbers of Clears from 1965 to 1978. Reference, which appears to be accurate in this case, is the first (1978) edition of 'What is Scientology?'. To ascertain the number of Clears for a given year, subtract the above number from the below number.:

1966: 172

1967: 725

1968: 1661

1969: 2879

1970: 3248

1971: 3665

1972: 4028

1973: 4574

1974: 5167

1975: 5716

1976: 6312

1977: 6601

1978: 6879

So, in 1968, 726 Clears were certified. In 1969, 1,218 Clears were verified. And in 1973, 546 Clears were certified. And in 1978, 278 Clears were certified.

Here's a snapshot of a little bit of 1977:

In January, LRH delighted Scientologists by telling them that "OT VIII has been in existence all these years," and there are "a very large number of OT grades" above OT VIII. Things became slightly more somber in February 1977 when the Commodore presented Scientologists with the HCOB 'Jokers and Degraders', followed by the March 1977 HCOB, 'The Gambler' (Here's a rare photo of LRH doing research into gambling)http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/images/michael-douglas3.jpg, followed in May by 'LSD, Years after they have come off of', which introduced the "Sweat program," which required wearing a rubber suit and running around.

The formal "Sweat program" was further described in the HCOB 'LSD and the Sweat program' of February 1978.

From 'LSD, Years after they have "come off of" LSD':

"Apparently they have become some sort of vegetable or zombie to a greater or lesser degree." Hubbard was describing what were often the most productive and creative people in Scientology (who had experimented with LSD before Scientology) as "vegetables or zombies to a greater or lesser degree." That reduced enthusiasm slightly.

Eventually, the "Sweat Program" became the more marketable "Purification Rundown," with the "Purif" meant for everyone.

Remember the hype for the Purif? "Only Scientologists who've done the Purif will survive World War III."

It was promoted along with the book, 'All About Radiation', which was "written by a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor," with Hubbard being the nuclear physicist.

Then came 1979, and (sometimes perplexed but nonetheless) VVVGIs Scientologists were attesting to Dianetic Clear by the busload, and rushing to Flag to start NOTs, which would remove the final barrier to full OT, just as OT 3 had done, and just as the old Clearing Course had done...

Veda, thank you for showing us the Clear stats here. However, without knowing exactly how many 'service completions' or staff members there were over this time period, it's hard to understand whether Scientology was contracting or growing. The Bridge grew considerably in this time period, so it's hard to ascertain whether that and all the 'breakthroughs' that came out helped to reduce the number of clears or because of the organisation shrinking.

[Vittorio]

'All About Radiation' was first published in 1957.

http://urss.ru/covers_ru/33953.gif
http://www.lermanet.com/images/all-about-radiation.jpg

I personally couldn't care less about Hubbard's boasts.

[SpecialFrog]

The first section was OBVIOUSLY written by Hubbard, and Hubbard LIED and PRETENDED to have had it written by this guy named "Medicus". Hubbard simply made it APPEAR that way in some lame attempt to attach more "legitimacy" to "his book".


Science fiction writer John Wyhdham wrote one book with Lucas Parks as a "technical advisor". However, Lucas Parks is just another of Wyndham's pen names.

Of course, he was deliberately writing fiction.

[Gadfly]

I personally couldn't care less about Hubbard's boasts.

Well his endless boasting, self-exaggeration and portrayal of himself to be things he was NOT is a definite indication of what an utter ASS Hubbard was. :biggrin:

You might not "care", but it IS relevant.

[Sindy]

I personally couldn't care less about Hubbard's boasts.

Hi Vittorio,

Please expound on this statement will you? I find it interesting and would like to understand fully what exactly you mean.

Sindy

[Vittorio]

Hi Vittorio,

Please expound on this statement will you? I find it interesting and would like to understand fully what exactly you mean.

Sindy

Synthia, many people exagerate and lie in their day to day lives, it doesn't make it OK, but I am no saint and I don't wish people to hold my every imperfection against me forever. It also goes against my belief that we should focus on the best in people or say nothing. Hubbard is no longer around, therefore the injustices can only be addressed to those living who perpetuated them. I'm more interested in stuff like this; http://www.forum.exscn.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=624896 where a former staffer explains how Hubbard 'preferred the dolls bodies from the past civilizations who had not emotions... etc etc' and Hana Eltringham's comments on ethics and punishment.

I'm interested in finding statistics on Scientology's membership/staff levels/course completion etc etc, because 'stats' are real to Marty and his followers as it is 'tech' and something they would find hard to refute.

[Vittorio]

Synthia, many people exagerate and lie in their day to day lives, it doesn't make it OK, but I am no saint and I don't wish people to hold my every imperfection against me forever. It also goes against my belief that we should focus on the best in people or say nothing. Hubbard is no longer around, therefore the injustices can only be addressed to those living who perpetuated them. I'm more interested in stuff like this; http://www.forum.exscn.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=624896 where a former staffer explains how Hubbard 'preferred the dolls bodies from the past civilizations who had not emotions... etc etc' and Hana Eltringham's comments on ethics and punishment.

I'm interested in finding statistics on Scientology's membership/staff levels/course completion etc etc, because 'stats' are real to Marty and his followers as it is 'tech' and something they would find hard to refute.

And talking of focussing on the better side of a person's character, Marty has been promoting the petition in the US and it is now only short of 446 signatures, which are needed in 4 days. A week ago, it seemed to be seriously lagging. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/examine-government%E2%80%99s-failure-investigate-and-prosecute-church-scientology-crime-fraud-and-abuse/L27wg021?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

[Sindy]

And talking of focussing on the better side of a person's character, Marty has been promoting the petition in the US and it is now only short of 446 signatures, which are needed in 4 days. A week ago, it seemed to be seriously lagging. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/examine-government%E2%80%99s-failure-investigate-and-prosecute-church-scientology-crime-fraud-and-abuse/L27wg021?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

A LOT of people have been promoting that petition. Great that he has been doing that (and he should be) but it really took everyone. Marty mentioned it many times before it took off and when it finally did take off, at least from my perspective, it was because of Tony Ortega and everyone gathering together to do whatever it took.

Good for Marty, good for you, good for everyone on this one.

[Vittorio]

Well his endless boasting, self-exaggeration and portrayal of himself to be things he was NOT is a definite indication of what an utter ASS Hubbard was. :biggrin:

You might not "care", but it IS relevant.

It isn't relevant to me, because I did not believe any of it when I was in the CoS. I read critical books when I was in, and even took one into the sauna with me on the Purif!

I'll never forget my auditors eyes when I mentioned Lisa McPherson! I am suprised that I lasted as long as I did.

I don't feel conned, because I didn't believe it then, nor do I now and I feel sorry for anyone who did believe it. Hubbard did have an interesting life and enough achievements as a writer not to have to exagerate everything.

Two things will bring down the Church IMO; 1. A public printing of the SP declare list and 2. Refunds.

[Sindy]

Synthia, many people exagerate and lie in their day to day lives, it doesn't make it OK, but I am no saint and I don't wish people to hold my every imperfection against me forever. It also goes against my belief that we should focus on the best in people or say nothing. Hubbard is no longer around, therefore the injustices can only be addressed to those living who perpetuated them. I'm more interested in stuff like this; http://www.forum.exscn.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=624896 where a former staffer explains how Hubbard 'preferred the dolls bodies from the past civilizations who had not emotions... etc etc' and Hana Eltringham's comments on ethics and punishment.

I'm interested in finding statistics on Scientology's membership/staff levels/course completion etc etc, because 'stats' are real to Marty and his followers as it is 'tech' and something they would find hard to refute.

Sure and thanks for expounding. Absolutely we would all do better to try and view the positive side of a person's character first and weigh that against any negatives. When you say that "many people exaggerate and lie in their daily lives....", I would say that firstly, L. Ron Hubbard wasn't just an average person but a person whose boastful lies, misdirection, demand for subservience, etc., etc., etc. is what entrapped people.

Why? Because maybe there are many people who exaggerate and lie but most try hard not to and don't wish to be associated with those who do lie. Most people try to be honest so, when they see a man profess such huge accomplishments, degrees, abilites, etc. they believe it because they would never do the same. It's too incredible that someone would do that so it's too easy to dismiss and too hard to believe that anyone would do that.

That's the trap. In addition, L. Ron Hubbard was not just your average joe blow guy out there whose lies were inconsequential. Lives have been ruined, including his own family's for generations. Listen to Jamie DeWolf, his great grandson.

I like you and appreciate your points of view. I don't actually think you are trying to dismiss his lies. I do, however, beg to differ and submit that his lies matter and they matter A LOT. I do care about his lies and exaggerations and agree with Gadfly that they ARE relevant.

Let me know what you think of this because maybe I am not fully getting what you are saying. I am always surprised when I hear someone say that they could care less about his lies.

[Veda]

The word is lie. Another applicable word is fraud.

Hubbard's lying and making fraudulent claims about his own past was a tip off as to his lying and making fraudulent claims about Dianetics and Scientology; and there are other tip offs, such as his "wog"-handling PR and Propaganda tech and covert Intelligence tech, turned inwards, and used on Scientologists, and his 1955 hoax black propaganda vehicle against psychiatry and Scientology critics, the 'Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics', which became, in the 1960s, his blueprint for Scientology and was used on Scientologists.

[Sindy]

The word is lie. Another applicable word is fraud.

......................

Enough said.

[Mark A. Baker]

Well his endless boasting, self-exaggeration and portrayal of himself to be things he was NOT is a definite indication of what an utter ASS Hubbard was. :biggrin:

You might not "care", but it IS relevant.

This is true. :yes:

In particular it underscores hubbard's need for admiration and his willingness to deceive others in order to obtain it. :eyeroll:

However, it is also true that hubbard didn't actually press a claim to possessing any sort of degree in the sciences. He claimed to have studied nuclear physics, and to a degree that is true. He took a course in physics in which some aspects of the topic were discussed and he did very poorly in that course. Anyone who pauses to reflect on the nature of particle physics could to that degree claim in some sort to be a 'nuclear physicist' by dint of his own study. Hubbard attained that very low standard of accomplishment. The fact remains that he never progressed beyond that point. His claim as it is asserted is not itself a measure of actual competency in the field, although that is how he uses it.

Accordingly his statement of being a 'nuclear physicist', while it is intentionally misleading, and thereby indicative of a willfully deceitful & misleading character, is at the same time and from some perspectives not wholly untrue. Albeit his use was clearly intended to mislead others through mischaracterization of his own competence. It is the assumption by others that specialized competence is inherent in such a claim which is the source of its power to mislead. That is a false assumption.

With regard to the physical sciences hubbard was himself incompetent. So also were those who accepted his claims about physics as being true without seeking further corroboration. With regard to science, "All About Radiation" is a simply dreadful book.


Mark A. Baker

[Sindy]

This is true. :yes:

In particular it underscores hubbard's need for admiration and his willingness to deceive others in order to obtain it. :eyeroll:

However, it is also true that hubbard didn't actually press a claim to possessing any sort of degree in the sciences. He claimed to have studied nuclear physics, and to a degree that is true. He took a course in physics in which some aspects of the topic were discussed and he did very poorly in that course. Anyone who pauses to reflect on the nature of particle physics could to that degree claim in some sort to be a 'nuclear physicist' by dint of his own study. Hubbard attained that very low standard of accomplishment. The fact remains that he never progressed beyond that point. His claim as it is asserted is not itself a measure of actual competency in the field, although that is how he uses it.

Accordingly his statement of being a 'nuclear physicist', while it is intentionally misleading, and thereby indicative of a willfully deceitful & misleading character, is at the same time and from some perspectives not wholly untrue. Albeit his use was clearly intended to mislead others through mischaracterization of his own competence. It is the assumption by others that specialized competence is inherent in such a claim which is the source of its power to mislead. That is a false assumption.

With regard to the physical sciences hubbard was himself incompetent. So also were those who accepted his claims about physics as being true without seeking further corroboration. With regard to science, "All About Radiation" is a simply dreadful book.


Mark A. Baker

I'm not sure how it is not wholly untrue. He either was a nuclear physicist or he wasn't.

[Veda]

This is true. :yes:

In particular it underscores hubbard's need for admiration and his willingness to deceive others in order to obtain it. :eyeroll:

However

-snip-



Please spare us.

If anyone wants to read your "Hubbard really didn't lie about being a nuclear physicist" argument, it can be found on this thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?7338-The-Ad-Hom-In-Context

Or one can see it explained sanely and succinctly at 5:03 - 5:09 of this video clip from a 1985 '60 Minutes' program.

Dan Rather: "Is he an atomic or nuclear physicist?"

Omar Garrison: "Of course not."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Drk3eVQSg

[Smilla]

It isn't relevant to me, because I did not believe any of it when I was in the CoS. I read critical books when I was in, and even took one into the sauna with me on the Purif!

I didn't particularly care about Hubbard when I was in either. I didn't read about him until after I left. I considered myself to be a customer buying a service, rather than a Scientologist saving the world. That was made clear at every step, and there was never a major problem about it.

I'll never forget my auditors eyes when I mentioned Lisa McPherson! I am suprised that I lasted as long as I did.

I didn't know about that when I was in, but it hit me pretty hard when I did find out about it. My critical stance towards Scientology is to do with the way others were treated, as I don't think I was treated very badly.

I don't feel conned, because I didn't believe it then, nor do I now and I feel sorry for anyone who did believe it. Hubbard did have an interesting life and enough achievements as a writer not to have to exagerate everything.

I didn't believe all the culty stuff either.

Two things will bring down the Church IMO; 1. A public printing of the SP declare list and 2. Refunds.

I doubt if they will publish that list, but I hope they do. Refunds, for sure. The main thing for me is that every lie and falsehood should be fully exposed.

[Vittorio]

Sure and thanks for expounding. Absolutely we would all do better to try and view the positive side of a person's character first and weigh that against any negatives. When you say that "many people exaggerate and lie in their daily lives....", I would say that firstly, L. Ron Hubbard wasn't just an average person but a person whose boastful lies, misdirection, demand for subservience, etc., etc., etc. is what entrapped people.

Why? Because maybe there are many people who exaggerate and lie but most try hard not to and don't wish to be associated with those who do lie. Most people try to be honest so, when they see a man profess such huge accomplishments, degrees, abilites, etc. they believe it because they would never do the same. It's too incredible that someone would do that so it's too easy to dismiss and too hard to believe that anyone would do that.

The subservience part, yes, I am more interested in that. The things he boasted about, it would seem he was a meer amateur in. Who buys a spiritual book written by a nuclear physicist? What I find distasteful is the promotion of the outrageous life a man lived by individuals who don't have the same opportunities (Sea Org).


That's the trap. In addition, L. Ron Hubbard was not just your average joe blow guy out there whose lies were inconsequential. Lives have been ruined, including his own family's for generations. Listen to Jamie DeWolf, his great grandson.

I like you and appreciate your points of view. I don't actually think you are trying to dismiss his lies. I do, however, beg to differ and submit that his lies matter and they matter A LOT. I do care about his lies and exaggerations and agree with Gadfly that they ARE relevant.

Let me know what you think of this because maybe I am not fully getting what you are saying. I am always surprised when I hear someone say that they could care less about his lies.

I'm more concerned about what he lied about. When discussing this subject it is very hard to focus on the better side of people's character considering the amount of emotion involved and the great deal of betrayal people feel. I don't want to be on the Marty attack for the next five years and I'm certainly not dedicated the rest of my life to discussing Hubbard, there is a LOT of information out there and everything is well documented.

I would not want to blacken another persons soul/character and not be able to locate them and say sorry to them. The risk is not worth it. I tend to take the good things I find in other subjects I study and cite them in the future. I wish to do the same with this subject, irrespective of how big or little it is.

As for Marty, I am sure he reads here so I don't need to repeat what I've already said and in time he will probably take on different viewpoints. That I can sit here and read so many different viewpoints and get into debate is a luxury that many people don't have. Life is too precious for petty squables.

Where I may be wrong on saying Hubbard's lies about his achievements may not be important is in one of Hubbard's own phrases 'Honest people have rights' and many honest people have been denied those rights when mentioning valid criticism of Scientology and, as I say here, of Marty.

[Smilla]

I'm not sure how it is not wholly untrue. He either was a nuclear physicist or he wasn't.

He wasn't :no:

[Mark A. Baker]

I'm not sure how it is not wholly untrue. He either was a nuclear physicist or he wasn't.

Just as Clinton was technically correct in his infamous instance of hairsplitting (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html) ...

... the point hinges on what the term 'nuclear physicist' actually means. Most people assume it means a person has a degree in the physics and has spent time in the study & investigation of sub-atomic particle physics. It doesn't actually. It's really a rather meaningless statement in itself.

If someone on the street walked up to you and said he was a 'nuclear physicist' you wouldn't have a clue what was meant. If he said he had a ph.d. from the university of mcgill in physics and his thesis had been on the topic of proton decay in helium atoms, then that would have actual meaning.

The assumption of meaning in the phrase 'nuclear physicist' is due more to its common association with students of physics who indeed have some sort of degree in the subject. Not all who have made contributions to the subject have had degrees in physics even though that is overwhelmingly the pattern.

With regard to hubbard, he made no contributions to the physical sciences generally, much less, sub-atomic particle physics. Nor was his claim anything other than a deliberate attempt on his part to suggest for himself a special credibility where in fact he had none. However, the specific claim he made about himself is in itself essentially meaningless.


Mark A. Baker

[Gadfly]

This is true. :yes:

In particular it underscores hubbard's need for admiration and his willingness to deceive others in order to obtain it. :eyeroll:

However, it is also true that hubbard didn't actually press a claim to possessing any sort of degree in the sciences. He claimed to have studied nuclear physics, and to a degree that is true. He took a course in physics in which some aspects of the topic were discussed and he did very poorly in that course. Anyone who pauses to reflect on the nature of particle physics could to that degree claim in some sort to be a 'nuclear physicist' by dint of his own study. Hubbard attained that very low standard of accomplishment. The fact remains that he never progressed beyond that point. His claim as it is asserted is not itself a measure of actual competency in the field, although that is how he uses it.

Accordingly his statement of being a 'nuclear physicist', while it is intentionally misleading, and thereby indicative of a willfully deceitful & misleading character, is at the same time and from some perspectives not wholly untrue. Albeit his use was clearly intended to mislead others through mischaracterization of his own competence. It is the assumption by others that specialized competence is inherent in such a claim which is the source of its power to mislead. That is a false assumption.

With regard to the physical sciences hubbard was himself incompetent. So also were those who accepted his claims about physics as being true without seeking further corroboration. With regard to science, "All About Radiation" is a simply dreadful book.

Mark A. Baker

Mark, enough of this theetie-wheetie bullshit. :whocares:

I have a degree in an electrical engineering. So, I suppose I could call myself an electrical engineer. But, I don't do that because I never did anythg with the degree.

But also, I wouldn't call ANYONE an "electrical engineer" unless he or she had minimally satisfied the generally accepted requirements to attain such a degree.

I am pretty sure that just about anybody in the world of colleges and universities, and in the field of physics, would ONLY put the label of "nuclear physicist" on somebody who had at least PASSED the totality of the minimal requirements. Now, you can play with words and ideas, and talk about "phony universities" and fake degrees, but MOST people have some concept about this that is attached to competence and qualifications.

Trying to bend this and make all these various viewpoints seem "acceptable" is just so, well, STUPID to me.

Mark, suggestion, stop trying to make EVERYTHING OKAY to everybody. It is all right to take a stand. It is okay NOT to be "wishy washy".

To "have studied something" does NOT make someone an "authority". Just because someone has studied some psychology books does NOT make them a "psychologist". Just because somebody has studied some math does not make them a "mathematician". Just because somebody has studied some few courses in astronomy does not make them an astronomer. Though granted, for someone to "be a Scientologist", one need simply adopt the moniker! :duh:

Hubbard was the master of "mock ups". He is the fellow who felt that whatever he "postulated" would "be true". He was a grand fucking liar. He felt that as long as he could get people to agree with whatever he said, that it "would be true". "Truth" was a VERY bendable thing to Hubbard. If he could get you to accept some idea, whether true or not, was the ONLY thing he cared about.

I get so sick of this crap that you toss out trying to see things from exceedinlgy tolerant views that borders on rediculousness and absurdity - that attempts to portray itself as "logical". I don't even usually see ANY point in such attempts. They explain nothing and they have little or no value of any importance.

He presented himself as a "nuclear physicist". End of story. He was not one, not by just about ANYONE'S standards. He wrote the stuff and made up the name "Medicus". He lied. Again. He presented himself as a nuclear physicist to exaggerate his credentials and to somehow attach more value and meaning to his Scientology nonsense. He was a "stage magician", and "entertainer", and he used tricks of words and meaning instead of stage props. Really the correct response to Hubbard would be LAUGHTER. At him.

[Mark A. Baker]

... I get so sick of this crap that you toss out trying to see things from exceedinlgy tolerant views that borders on rediculousness and absuridty - that attempts to portray itself as "logical". I don't even usually see ANY point in such attempts. They explain nothing and they have little or no value of any importance.

No doubt that is why you choose not to. For myself, I prefer to see things from as many differing perspectives as possible. One of the things I learned long ago is it helps to shed light on subjects in ways that otherwise could be easily overlooked. I've found it to be extremely useful in practice and so have many others whom I have helped accordingly.

It's better to understand something from the perspective of one or more others than to simply assume one's own understanding is the only possible way to interpret observed phenomena or circumstances. To this regard contrarian perspectives are commonly the most enlightening.


Mark A. Baker

[AnonKat]

VOTE

http://media.brainz.org/uploads/2009/05/topmontage.jpg

[Gadfly]

No doubt that is why you choose not to. For myself, I prefer to see things from as many differing perspectives as possible. One of the things I learned long ago is it helps to shed light on subjects in ways that otherwise could be easily overlooked. I've found it to be extremely useful in practice and so have many others whom I have helped accordingly.

It's better to understand something from the perspective of one or more others than to simply assume one's own understanding is the only possible way to interpret observed phenomena or circumstances. To this regard contrarian perspectives are commonly the most enlightening.

Mark A. Baker

Mark, I have a very good ability to see things from a wide range of views.

But, I see NO VALUE in choosing to select an entirely absurdist view out of a panoply of possibilities that few or none actually HAVE!

And, THAT is what you did with this little excursion into "how it can make sense that Ron was a nuclear physicist". I mean, I CAN use strange mental gymnastics and concatenations of logic to have real NONSENSE appear to "make sense". But why? Granted, one DOES get adept at "making sense of nonsense" through affiliation with Scientology. Maybe, for you, it simply took its toll? :confused2:

For example, I can easily understand that some few people on Earth might take the view that involvement with Scientology will lead to greatly expanded abilites that render them no longer "human". But, while I can embrace the fact that some few might have this view or perspective, it exists largely in the category of "total lunacy and idiocy". As does the view that Hubbard "was a nucler physicist".

[Veda]

As a sophomore at college, before dropping out, Hubbard took a one semester course in nuclear physics. He flunked, receiving the grade of F. He was not a nuclear physicist.

Enough already.

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Dear Marty,

I'm writing to you as a former Scientologist {personal information edited out}. I am
writing as I have been watching and reading the
activities of the Freezone for many years on the web including your own
blog. I have also participated in the Freezone, having received
auditing and studied here in the UK and in mainland Europe. My services
were from the {name of group removed}. The prices were reasonable, the services well delivered and the {name removed} were open and honest. They promote the idea of the 'golden middle' and don't advocate Scientology as the only
route, apply no pressure to people and have a generally good education
in other subjects, being well travelled individuals. When I expressed
that I might want to spend some time studying something else, they did
not berate me or sit me down to tell me I have "O/W's", they instead
sat down and told me about their own positive experiences with said
subject. Ethics was light and only used when needed. Most of their
students/auditors have never been in the Church and are a pleasure to
be around. There isn't hours of complaining about Miscavige.

This is where I am disheartened with your current movement and I want
to address you personally rather than go behind your back. You censor
your forum to prevent any dissenting voice from coming through, and the
few comments you do let through, you have the privilege of vetting and
deciding how to respond beforehand. I find what I read on your blog to
be remarkeably sadistic and akin to the bully boy tactics I witnessed
as a Church staff member. I would go as far as to say that you are
cluless about Div 6 activities and how to use TR's. An example would be
a young man who posted on your blog, who was not pro-Scientology and
who grew up as a child in the Sea Org. Rather than acknowledge or show
any understanding for the horrors that this young man probably went
through, you and your followers come down hard on him instead. One
response to him went something along the lines of 'refute something in
Dianetics as not being true'. He stated that his father or step father
was a clear who got colds and Dianetics stated that this doesn't
happen. Your response 'You obviously haven't listened to the Clearing
Congress'. He probably hasn't, but he is asking about Dianetics, not
the Clearing Congress! Right until the end of your conversation with
him he is REACHING! Even when he posts another question that is
contrary to what is your own viewpoint, he is STILL REACHING! and you
tell him 'not to bother'.

Now, you protest your own victimhood before the worlds media, yet you
cannot have a moment to acknowledge that a young person is broken by
their experience of growing up in the Sea Org. The difference between
you and that person is that you would have done anything for LRH tech
including physically assaulting people, lying to the media, harrassing
anyone who practises Scientology independent of the Church and
attacking all those who worked with Hubbard personally and witnessed
the development of Scientology first hand. Whilst you were breaking
into filing cabinets with Miscavige, THOUSANDS were walking out or
being declared from the Church. Many spotted the suppression back then
in the early 80's. You were part of the suppression. There are many
thousands who left who did not abuse people, who did not trick, harrass
and sue people and who only had the intention of helping mankind. Many
were loyal to the tech even though they witnessed Hubbards character
flaws first hand and knew his history was contrary to what he stated.

So, when someone comes to your blog and wants some answers and they are
not screaming and shouting, it is not a hard thing so say 'sorry' for
their experiences and that they are always welcome to a face to face
chat if it helps, that the door is always to them if they want the tech
again and that you are willing to honestly answer their questions. Your
comm lag to Martin Bashir was very telling. He was disgusted at the way
you tried to justify your beatings of other staff members and he is
right you cannot just lay it at the hands of Miscavige. The truth is
never entheta even if it's something we do not like. Hubbards ethics
and PR tech fails miserably when used to crush truth. You've seen that
over the past 20 years, if not in Hubbard's own lifetime. If you don't
confront and handle the anger you cause now, it will, like a damn reach
a breaking point at some point and cascade onto you. Society does not
like being ignored when complaining about injustics, just look at hoe
WOGS are putting ethics in on the Church and how it took critics of
Scientology to put ethics in on the Pierre Ethier and his extreme
arrogance.

Hubbard's research line included using clairvoyancy to attain
information off the akashic record, something that he was experienced
of doing during his time in the occult. Dincalci pretty much confirmed
this when describing how Hubbard looked when he was writing his
bulletins. Hubbard claimed to Jack Parsons that he was inspired by the
'Empress', his guide. No doubt, Hubbard had a telepathic connection to
some guiding force very early on in his life. The Holy Grail was a
message delivered to earth thousands of years ago. It showed mankind
the nature of the trap and how to get out of it. The early minoans knew
this as it was demonstrated in the way they buried their dead (although
they may have got GE and spirit confused). That message was stolen and
has been used ever since to control all fields of Science, Politics,
religion and media. The Holy Grail has two parts, the elixir and the
cup. The emphasis placed on which part will dictate how a group
behaves. The patriarchal or matriarchal aspect. Lots of Greek words
turn up in Scientology and curiously the level of OT3 contains lots of
occult archetypes. The OT levels may give man an opportunity to access
or undo some of the trap laid here on earth. Much of Hubbards occult
research ended up in Scientology. Whatever the case, you are not in a
position to tell people they are 'suppressive' or '1.1' or that they
should discredit Hubbard by not acknowledging his full character, which
was clearly a battle between helping people and his desire for material
things. As a carrier of the message, the Holy Grail for some time, I
felt compelled to write to you. Many people who are critical of
Scientology are not bad people. Many are good individuals who just
wanted to help and have been severely harmed in the process. You can
win people over with kindness, live and let live and by saying sorry.
Very few of them criticise David Mayo and Mayo was a Freezoner also.
Most of the critics of Scientology who were once 'in' remember him
fondly as being a person who was kind and honest. They cannot say that
from their dealings with yourself. The Church was not only bad to you
or those that agree with you.

Spiritual freedom is not guaranteed by Scientology, although it can
help it to be achieved as long as a person stands up to truth. The trap
is rigged. The GE's here on earth are waiting for a moment in the cycle
when all aspects of it fall into a certain level of alignment and a
hole is made which they can escape through, possibly at a time of
catastrophe (for a short amount of time at least, they will come back,
they always do, their game here has been to lengthy for them to let go
of). I would rather tell the truth and loose auditing as a result of
telling the truth than stick with lies and be part of a group. Your
very good at using tech on anyone that questions you, but you don't
seem to apply it to yourself. Remember this; 'only a degraded being
works for an SP'. You worked for one for over 20yrs. Thousands walked
from the suppression in Scientology the moment it fell on their heads
in the early 80's. You helped suppress people for 20yrs. Don't be
suprised if your criticised harshly publicly. If your group grows with
ex-Scientologists it has every possibility of reinstating
disconnection, fair game and heavy ethics. it's already starting to
happen to your blog. I have heard along the line that you have
disconnected {name removed}. Your applying to the FBI for help now. What
aboout all those people who fought against Miscavige in the 80's and
whom you helped to suppress? Who was around to help them before the
days of the internet? Caving in another soul comes with great
consequences. 'Doing it for Ron' does not make it OK. You have a window
of time in which you can help salvage people's faith in the tech by
making ammends with many and accepting that not everyone wants to
follow your road. I feel that you are still treating people badly and
ignoring the grave risk of leaving ARC breaks and connecting yourself
to souls trapped here on earth. Peoplewant reform, otherwise they
wouldn't be protesting.

This is a private email btw.

Regards,

{name edited out}
London, UKThat's an excellent email, unfortunately Hubbard's 'Tech' was never designed to actually help people get their shit together, if it was designed to actually help people get their shit together there would have never been a need to write this email, but it doesn't.

Hubbard was just as much of a manipulative asshole after Scientology as he was before Scientology and the same goes for Marty. Marty finally figured out the game of Scientology, it took Miscavige to kick him to the curb to make him understand it. If Miscavige didn't kick him to the curb he's still be Miscavige's water-boy to this day.

Marty isn't interested in what you or anyone else thinks or has to say about Scientology, he's interested in using Scientology for exactly what it was designed to do; which is, create dysfunctional and highly dependent slaves to serve their leader.

[Sindy]

Just as Clinton was technically correct in his infamous instance of hairsplitting (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html) ...

... the point hinges on what the term 'nuclear physicist' actually means. Most people assume it means a person has a degree in the physics and has spent time in the study & investigation of sub-atomic particle physics. It doesn't actually. It's really a rather meaningless statement in itself.

If someone on the street walked up to you and said he was a 'nuclear physicist' you wouldn't have a clue what was meant. If he said he had a ph.d. from the university of mcgill in physics and his thesis had been on the topic of proton decay in helium atoms, then that would have actual meaning.

The assumption of meaning in the phrase 'nuclear physicist' is due more to its common association with students of physics who indeed have some sort of degree in the subject. Not all who have made contributions to the subject have had degrees in physics even though that is overwhelmingly the pattern.

With regard to hubbard, he made no contributions to the physical sciences generally, much less, sub-atomic particle physics. Nor was his claim anything other than a deliberate attempt on his part to suggest for himself a special credibility where in fact he had none. However, the specific claim he made about himself is in itself essentially meaningless.


Mark A. Baker

Mark, this stuff is painfully - no, excruciatingly pedantic. These paragraphs are so convoluted that my head hurts trying to make any sense of them at all and it's not because I'm stupid.

He's wasn't a nuclear physicist. He said he was a nuclear physicist. He lied.

See, easy, just 3 sentences. :)

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Just as Clinton was technically correct in his infamous instance of hairsplitting (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html) ...

... the point hinges on what the term 'nuclear physicist' actually means. Most people assume it means a person has a degree in the physics and has spent time in the study & investigation of sub-atomic particle physics. It doesn't actually. It's really a rather meaningless statement in itself.

If someone on the street walked up to you and said he was a 'nuclear physicist' you wouldn't have a clue what was meant. If he said he had a ph.d. from the university of mcgill in physics and his thesis had been on the topic of proton decay in helium atoms, then that would have actual meaning.

The assumption of meaning in the phrase 'nuclear physicist' is due more to its common association with students of physics who indeed have some sort of degree in the subject. Not all who have made contributions to the subject have had degrees in physics even though that is overwhelmingly the pattern.

With regard to hubbard, he made no contributions to the physical sciences generally, much less, sub-atomic particle physics. Nor was his claim anything other than a deliberate attempt on his part to suggest for himself a special credibility where in fact he had none. However, the specific claim he made about himself is in itself essentially meaningless.


Mark A. Baker

Hubbard wasn't a nuclear physicist he was a comedian. Have you ever read 'All About Radiation'? It's pure comedy gold, almost as hilarious as 'History Of Man'

[elwood]

MArty's quote: "The 2 1/2 % who have seized control of the church of Scientology have sold out to the 1 % who are destroying the world’s economy by turning Wall Street into their personal casino."

Say what? WTF is he talking about?

[Ogsonofgroo]

MArty's quote: "The 2 1/2 % who have seized control of the church of Scientology have sold out to the 1 % who are destroying the world’s economy by turning Wall Street into their personal casino."

Say what? WTF is he talking about?

Holy crap! That makes sense like tits on a bull. iya :duh:

:duh:

:lol:

Actually its kinda funny when Marty tries to sound informed and intelligent~derp-herp :clap:

[Gadfly]

Mark, this stuff is painfully - no, excruciatingly pedantic. These paragraphs are so convoluted that my head hurts trying to make any sense of them at all and it's not because I'm stupid.

He's wasn't a nuclear physicist. He said he was a nuclear physicist. He lied.

See, easy, just 3 sentences. :)

Syn, one has to really WORK to "make sense of nonsense".

I agree, that "excruciating" is an apt adjective here. "Convoluted" is quite germane too. And, "pedantic" fits so very well. Making sense of nonsense is such an amazingly well-honed ability of "the Scientologist".

Look at just how MANY WORDS Hubbard spoke and typed. Hubbard's writings are often exercises in incredible flights of fantasy that pretend to be otherwise, and go through endless contortions of meaning, contradictions and vague abstractions.

Hubbard didn't write on and on because he needed EVERY single word to explain and delineate the incrediby complexity of his shining wisdom, but instead because it takes CONFUSION and COMPLEXITY to trick people into accepting nonsense as being sensible. Plus, no doubt Hubbard (and some others here) seem to like to listen to themselves "pontificate" to the rest of the "not so bright" (indicative of the condescending attitude of Hubbard and the typical over-indoctrinated Scientologist).

[Gadfly]

MArty's quote: "The 2 1/2 % who have seized control of the church of Scientology have sold out to the 1 % who are destroying the world’s economy by turning Wall Street into their personal casino."

Say what? WTF is he talking about?

Ummm, the "world bankers"? The central bankers? The 12 or so MAIN SPs mentioned in RJ 67? :confused2:

Making sense of nonsense is no easy task! :no:

Remember Marty is ALWAYS "referring" to the "brilliant" words and "enlightening" comments of the great L. Ron Hubbard!!!!

[NCSP]

Ummm, the "world bankers"? The central bankers? The 12 or so MAIN SPs mentioned in RJ 67? :confused2:

Making sense of nonsense is no easy task! :no:

Remember Marty is ALWAYS "referring" to the "brilliant" words and "enlightening" comments of the great L. Ron Hubbard!!!!

It might be worth noting that "international bankers" or "world bankers" has long been considered anti-Semitic code for "Jewish bankers," particularly at the time that LRH used the term. If you're in the mood for a depressing evening, Google "international bankers" and "Jew."

Over the years, the anti-Semitic origins of the term have been obscured, and lots of conspiracy theorists use it without necessarily intending to indicate Jewish people. And it's certainly not true that any criticism of banks is anti-Semitic. But the term has a really gross history as a "dog whistle" for anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. (See http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/09/opinion/journal-the-jew-world-order.html )

[HelluvaHoax!]

As a sophomore at college, before dropping out, Hubbard took a one semester course in nuclear physics. He flunked, receiving the grade of F. He was not a nuclear physicist.

Enough already.


Hubbard never earned a degree...

However, Mark Baker did earn an honorary WordClown degree with his tortured, idiotic attempts to sound scholarly while pretending that someone (besides himself) is the least bit confused about whether Hubbard was a nuclear physicist.

My god, that earlier thread you referenced has some absolute WordClown masterpieces by Baker on how nobody can really know what the term nuclear physicist means.

Perhaps of interest. . . One of my companies employs world renowned engineers, PhDs and physicists and if Baker was in one of our R/D meetings and started to do his WordClown act about the unknowability of what constitutes a "nuclear physicist"-- they would simply stop the meeting and tell him to leave (as soon as they stopped laughing).

By the way, a few days ago the Urban Dictionary accepted the definition I submitted for WordClown (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wordclown), so Baker should be given credit for having contributed something, at least, to the discussion.

[loose cannon]

Ummm, the "world bankers"? The central bankers? The 12 or so MAIN SPs mentioned in RJ 67? :confused2:

Making sense of nonsense is no easy task! :no:

Remember Marty is ALWAYS "referring" to the "brilliant" words and "enlightening" comments of the great L. Ron Hubbard!!!!
Well I think this was one point where Hubbard was more or less right about what's really happening behind the scenes in society.

The fact that he then had somebody to blame for all his own and Co$ failures is another thing.

And Marty is simply doing the same.

[loose cannon]

Hubbard wasn't a nuclear physicist he was a comedian. Have you ever read 'All About Radiation'? It's pure comedy gold, almost as hilarious as 'History Of Man'
Why? For the most part it looks like a simple textbook about nuclear physics and chemistry for high schools. No miracle, of course, but comparing it to the "History of Man"? :no:

[Student of Trinity]

According to Hubbard's GWU transcript (http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/hubbard-gwu.html), the one-semester course that he flunked was on atomic and molecular physics, not nuclear physics. AM physics and nuclear physics were and are entirely different subjects.

The fact that nuclear and atomic physics are so totally separate is a remarkable and surprising fact, but also a very basic one. An atomic nucleus is roughly 100,000 times smaller than an atom. If you could zoom in on an atom with a super-microscope, you would turn the dial to magnify more and more, and you would keep on seeing ... nothing new, until you had finally magnified by 100,000 times down from the atomic scale. Only after all that magnifying through nothingness would you finally see the tiny nuclear speck at the atom's core.

That's very remarkable. Magnifying anything by a factor of just ten or a hundred almost always reveals a vast wealth of new detail. Zoom in on your own hand, for instance, and you can go from looking at wrinkles and lines, to looking at cells, in just a factor of ten or so. Keep zooming and you see all the internal biology of cells, down to chromosomes and big molecules, in just another factor of ten or a hundred. But once you hit the atomic scale, suddenly there's this vast desert, as far as detail with magnification is concerned. Magnify by ten, by 100, by 1000, by 10,000 ... and nothing new shows up, until finally at 100,000 you see the nucleus. Once you've finally hit the nucleus, then, there's not even so much further to go in magnification to discover quarks and other exotic particles. From the nucleus inward, as far as we've been able to see so far, there is again a wealth of detail. That's why nuclear physics is a rich subject. But the gap between atomic physics and nuclear physics stands out dramatically as one of the biggest gaps in nature, scale-wise. The only other gap of comparable size that we know of may be between the interstellar scale and the galactic scale, which is another factor of about 100,000.

To call someone a nuclear physicist because they have studied atomic physics is very much like calling a geography student a student of solar astrophysics, just because the Earth goes around the sun. In fact the two subjects have nothing to do with one another, and this fact itself is one of the most basic facts in either of the subjects. To confuse the two is to betray basic ignorance of both. The fact that Hubbard studied atomic physics does not mean that he did anything with nuclear physics. The fact that he didn't seem to realize this jibes well with the fact that his grade in atomic physics was an F.

[Veda]

According to Hubbard's GWU transcript (http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/hubbard-gwu.html), the one-semester course that he flunked was on atomic and molecular physics, not nuclear physics. AM physics and nuclear physics were and are entirely different subjects.

-snip-

To call someone a nuclear physicist because they have studied atomic physics is very much like calling a geography student a student of solar astrophysics, just because the Earth goes around the sun.

-snip-



That's correct. It was a course in atomic and molecular physics which Hubbard flunked.

Unfortunately, you used the words, "they have studied atomic physics," implying, or suggesting the possibility that Hubbard seriously studied "atomic and molecular physics" - if only for one minute - and this opens the door for a return of Mark A. Baker for another round of Word Clown-ism.

It will never end.

[Vittorio]

Just as Clinton was technically correct in his infamous instance of hairsplitting (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html) ...

... the point hinges on what the term 'nuclear physicist' actually means. Most people assume it means a person has a degree in the physics and has spent time in the study & investigation of sub-atomic particle physics. It doesn't actually. It's really a rather meaningless statement in itself.

If someone on the street walked up to you and said he was a 'nuclear physicist' you wouldn't have a clue what was meant. If he said he had a ph.d. from the university of mcgill in physics and his thesis had been on the topic of proton decay in helium atoms, then that would have actual meaning.

The assumption of meaning in the phrase 'nuclear physicist' is due more to its common association with students of physics who indeed have some sort of degree in the subject. Not all who have made contributions to the subject have had degrees in physics even though that is overwhelmingly the pattern.

With regard to hubbard, he made no contributions to the physical sciences generally, much less, sub-atomic particle physics. Nor was his claim anything other than a deliberate attempt on his part to suggest for himself a special credibility where in fact he had none. However, the specific claim he made about himself is in itself essentially meaningless.


Mark A. Baker

Hubbard needed some credibility to show that his work meant something. Maybe he didn't want to reveal who the 'Empress' who guided him actually was. I remember reading a book about 4 years ago and the author stated very off hand that he was once in the SO and on the ship and that once he visited San Francisco with another SO member and they went to a museum and there was a waxwork of Crowley and they both got this really unusual sensation in regards to Hubbard. A couple of decades later and out of Scientology for a long time, this author found himself asleep in bed when all of a sudden he was out of the body and in the sky where he saw a large bust of Hubbard. The bust shattered to reveal a hag of a woman.

All these male messiahs who just always seem to be 'source', never the woman. Notice how Marie Antoinette was supposed to have said 'let them eat cake', probably a great lie! And Mary Magdalene is referred to as a 'whore'! And look at how the British politician Mo Mowlam was treated before she died of cancer. It seems that whenever a woman cottons on to the truth she gets stitched up by a male hierarchy. Whether Hubbards source is a 'hag' or not is to be questioned or a person whose healing properties he passed off as his own, with a dollop of doll body coldness in the form of HCOPL's and occult research. One acquaintance of Hubbards stated that at Saint Hill Ron had a trick where he could literally move the clouds! (Reminds me of an old working by Crowley).

Also, I've seen before how something with a ring of truth about it can have a massive out-reality factor. Look at how David Icke is sometimes spot on about world events and at other times he is just completely off the wall. He states that many world leaders are shape shifting reptiles. Talk about out-reality! He admits in at least one of his books to visiting South America and taking hallucinogenic drugs and seeing visions. The Akashic record or that great library in the sky is a great source of information, but also seems to cause distorted reality in those who use it and those who seek information off it which is NOT THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES (which they could discover through reviewing their own past lives). Maybe there was a time when following a major catastrophe here on earth (OT3?) that only reptiles were able to live under the new conditions and rather than have no game at all, those spirits present took the body's of these animals. It certainly wouldn't make them reptiles now but could go a long away to describe their predatory behaviour! Maybe this is Hubbards anti-social personality. That cold, hard and cruel thinking with a lack of conscience and no sense of justice. Ron seems to have used some form of magic and clairvoyancy and probably had some kind of psychic/out of body experience in that dentists room. It would go a long way to explain why such an unseeming personality would be able to create something which so many claim has helped them (and believe me, that is the case, despite what is on the internet).

When I dared mention that Hubbard might not be source to the FZ, it caused a terrible storm. That is their excuse for leaving the Church, to 'get on source' and it was unsettling of me to shake that for them. Marty obviously recognises my threat to his monopoly (the golden cup of the grail) and is willing to risk loosing the elixir (healing and spirituality, truth and goodness) in the process.

I've never forgotten any of my great teachers, they helped me a great deal. I often wonder whether Hubbard's 'thinly taped' route out was no more than a modern interpretation of Ariadne and her golden string. I imagine a beautiful spiritual woman trying to show man the error of his ways.

[HelluvaHoax!]

That's correct. It was a course in atomic and molecular physics which Hubbard flunked.

Unfortunately, you used the words, "they have studied atomic physics," implying, or suggesting the possibility that Hubbard seriously studied "atomic and molecular physics" - if only for one minute - and this opens the door for a return of Mark A. Baker for another round of Word Clown-ism.

It will never end.


Incurable WordClownism is also known as WC Perpetualis. It is a disease that attacks the pre-frontal cortex's reasoning facility with alarmingly amusing results.

http://urss.ru/covers_ru/33953.gif
http://www.lermanet.com/images/all-about-radiation.jpg


Legal Disclaimer: The following message was channeled by a medical doctor and a nuclear psychic.


Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker
Although ALL ABOUT RADIATION stated "L. Ron Hubbard, one of America's first nuclear physicists...." one will never know with certainty if the reference to a nuclear physicist by the name of L. Ron Hubbard is meant to imply that the book's author is also a nuclear physicist simply because the the commonality of name. This reasoning is thinly speculative at best and persons suggesting that the book's author tacitly approved this non-sequitur conclusion have fallen victim to their own epistemological deficiencies.

[Ogsonofgroo]

With regard to hubbard, he made no contributions to the physical sciences generally, much less, sub-atomic particle physics. Nor was his claim anything other than a deliberate attempt on his part to suggest for himself a special credibility where in fact he had none. However, the specific claim he made about himself is in itself essentially meaningless.

I've been wondering for a while, given some of your excellent counter-arguments etc., where you stood on the wall, think I have it now..... Hubbard was fucked up.

Whether the old wind-bag had anything worthwhile in his bag of con is another matter I suppose. :shrug:


:scnsucks:

[Veda]

I've been wondering for a while, given some of your excellent counter-arguments etc., where you stood on the wall, think I have it now..... Hubbard was fucked up.

Whether the old wind-bag had anything worthwhile in his bag of con is another matter I suppose. :shrug:


:scnsucks:

If you're going to do an in depth study of Baker's methods of communicating, a paragraph taken out of context may not be helpful, as such a paragraph may exist only to prompt agreement from a person ("ARC"), so that a subsequent paragraph can lead the person to a completely different place.

Of course, one can only speculate as to whether Baker actually wears a white naugahyde belt and shoes with matching leisure suit.

[Ogsonofgroo]

Actually I always thought like, um, leather panty-hose... :whip:

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Why? For the most part it looks like a simple textbook about nuclear physics and chemistry for high schools. No miracle, of course, but comparing it to the "History of Man"? :no:

It's not a textbook about nuclear physics, it's a comedy act. Calling it a textbook about nuclear physics is like calling the sound of a fart a symphony. And yes it brings the lulz just like his other comedy act History Of Man.

[Vittorio]

From factnet


Bonnie Mott infiltrated the Bud and Leigh or Lee Fields' home as a govemess. She was ordered by Marty Rathbum, one of the heads of the Scientology Intelligence Agency, to murder Bud Fields because he wouldn't sell this boat (Free Winds) that Scientology wanted to Miscavige. Aher Fields was murdered, the boat was bought by Scientology within a one week.

Is there any evidence to substantiate these allegations?

[Freeminds]

http://urss.ru/covers_ru/33953.gif


I love the fact that the cover is a caricature of LRH, in his 'Thought Police' uniform. It's clear there was already a thriving community of SPs, back when that tripe was published.

[Peter Soderqvist]

Just as Clinton was technically correct in his infamous instance of hairsplitting (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html) ...

... the point hinges on what the term 'nuclear physicist' actually means. Most people assume it means a person has a degree in the physics and has spent time in the study & investigation of sub-atomic particle physics. It doesn't actually. It's really a rather meaningless statement in itself.

If someone on the street walked up to you and said he was a 'nuclear physicist' you wouldn't have a clue what was meant. If he said he had a ph.d. from the university of mcgill in physics and his thesis had been on the topic of proton decay in helium atoms, then that would have actual meaning.

The assumption of meaning in the phrase 'nuclear physicist' is due more to its common association with students of physics who indeed have some sort of degree in the subject. Not all who have made contributions to the subject have had degrees in physics even though that is overwhelmingly the pattern.

With regard to hubbard, he made no contributions to the physical sciences generally, much less, sub-atomic particle physics. Nor was his claim anything other than a deliberate attempt on his part to suggest for himself a special credibility where in fact he had none. However, the specific claim he made about himself is in itself essentially meaningless.


Mark A. Baker


Soderqvist1: Hubbard claimed that;” The mind was a problem which had to be solved from a knowledge both of humanity and of nuclear physics and modern mathematics.”

Introduction Technical Bulletins Volume I —L. Ron HUbbard
The mind was a problem which had to be solved from a knowledge both of humanity and of nuclear physics and modem mathematics. The final solution was simple. The route to it required the physical universe knowledge given to us by searchers in the physical sciences and mathematics. The story of how Scientology and Dianetics came about will demonstrate this. It will illustrate the background knowledge which was apparently necessary to carry forth to conclusion work which was initiated by Freud and the countless generations behind him.

My father, a naval officer, decreed that I would study engineering and mathematics and so I found myself obediently studying the physical sciences at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. A course called “Atomic and Molecular Phenomena” had been instituted there. Today we call it Nuclear Physics. I was fortunate enough to be an early student of that subject in what I believe was the first course in nuclear physics formally taught in the United States.

While at the university I adventured upon certain researches which were off curriculum. I wanted to find the smallest particle or unit of energy Man could contact. And, recalling Thompson’s teachings, decided to investigate the energy of the human mind.
http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1441&Itemid=240

Wikipedia Nuclear physics
Nuclear physics is the field of physics that studies the building blocks and interactions of atomic nuclei. The field of particle physics evolved out of nuclear physics and is typically taught in close association with nuclear physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_physics

[Lurker5]

This is true. :yes:

In particular it underscores hubbard's need for admiration and his willingness to deceive others in order to obtain it. :eyeroll:

However, it is also true that hubbard didn't actually press a claim to possessing any sort of degree in the sciences. He claimed to have studied nuclear physics, and to a degree that is true. He took a course in physics in which some aspects of the topic were discussed and he did very poorly in that course. Anyone who pauses to reflect on the nature of particle physics could to that degree claim in some sort to be a 'nuclear physicist' by dint of his own study. Hubbard attained that very low standard of accomplishment. The fact remains that he never progressed beyond that point. His claim as it is asserted is not itself a measure of actual competency in the field, although that is how he uses it.

Accordingly his statement of being a 'nuclear physicist', while it is intentionally misleading, and thereby indicative of a willfully deceitful & misleading character, is at the same time and from some perspectives not wholly untrue. Albeit his use was clearly intended to mislead others through mischaracterization of his own competence. It is the assumption by others that specialized competence is inherent in such a claim which is the source of its power to mislead. That is a false assumption.

With regard to the physical sciences hubbard was himself incompetent. So also were those who accepted his claims about physics as being true without seeking further corroboration. With regard to science, "All About Radiation" is a simply dreadful book.


Mark A. Baker

Did you read the cover of the booklet that was posted on here?

[Student of Trinity]

A course called “Atomic and Molecular Phenomena” had been instituted there. Today we call it Nuclear Physics.

Hubbard was just bullshitting here, from ignorance. Hubbard took his course in 1931. The Schrödinger equation had only been written down in 1926, and the neutron would not be discovered until 1932. Nuclear physics did not exist in the year of Hubbard's course. Atomic and molecular physics, in contrast, was at least a couple of decades old at that point, and could have been the subject of an introductory course. The two subjects were entirely distinct from the beginning, and have remained so ever since.

[Voltaire's Child]

Hubbard was just bullshitting here, from ignorance. Hubbard took his course in 1931. The Schrödinger equation had only been written down in 1926, and the neutron would not be discovered until 1932. Nuclear physics did not exist in the year of Hubbard's course. Atomic and molecular physics, in contrast, was at least a couple of decades old at that point, and could have been the subject of an introductory course. The two subjects were entirely distinct from the beginning, and have remained so ever since.

Soooo...you're saying that Hubbard did not pioneer and invent newclear fizzics?

[Vittorio]

I don't undertsand what Hubbard being a physicist has got to do with this thread or why Veda put pictures of All About Radiation right in the middle. We all know Hubbard was not a Nuclear Physicist, there is barely a website about him that does not mention this fact. I was asking for stastics regarding the growth of the organisation before and after 1981 and asking about this;


Bonnie Mott infiltrated the Bud and Leigh or Lee Fields' home as a govemess. She was ordered by Marty Rathbum, one of the heads of the Scientology Intelligence Agency, to murder Bud Fields because he wouldn't sell this boat (Free Winds) that Scientology wanted to Miscavige. Aher Fields was murdered, the boat was bought by Scientology within a one week.

And to answer Synthia's question again; the reason why I don't care about whether Hubbard was A, B or C is because I know he isn't already and just posting about it everywhere derails from topics closer to the present which might be worth investigating. It's all there on OCMB.

[HelluvaHoax!]

I don't undertsand what Hubbard being a physicist has got to do with this thread or why Veda put pictures of All About Radiation right in the middle. We all know Hubbard was not a Nuclear Physicist, there is barely a website about him that does not mention this fact. I was asking for stastics regarding the growth of the organisation before and after 1981 and asking about this; And to answer Synthia's question again; the reason why I don't care about whether Hubbard was A, B or C is because I know he isn't already and just posting about it everywhere derails from topics closer to the present which might be worth investigating. It's all there on OCMB.


REASON WHY...


"Number of times over (Hubbard's) materials equals uncertainty (about Hubbard)."
- Hell Ruin Hoaxard - HCOPL Keeping Sanity Working

Yeah, it might be "all there on OCMB" and all here on ESMB--but there are still, for incognita causa, people who regularly post here (and ostensibly read others' posts here) who keep blithely chattering about "the tech" and states of Clear & Operating Thetan as if they were not fanciful prose from mythology.

Treacherous WordClowns like Hubbard (and his deputized junior WordClown apologists & practitioners) deserve all the repetition & publicity they so dearly crave. We here at ESMB are just humbly trying to tender what is needed and wanted.

[Vittorio]

REASON WHY...


"Number of times over (Hubbard's) materials equals uncertainty (about Hubbard)."
- Hell Ruin Hoaxard - HCOPL Keeping Sanity Working

Yeah, it might be "all there on OCMB" and all here on ESMB--but there are still, for incognita causa, people who regularly post here (and ostensibly read others' posts here) who keep blithely chattering about "the tech" and states of Clear & Operating Thetan as if they were not fanciful prose from mythology.

Treacherous WordClowns like Hubbard (and his deputized junior WordClown apologists & practitioners) deserve all the repetition & publicity they so dearly crave. We here at ESMB are just humbly trying to tender what is needed and wanted.

And in the process stuff like this gets buried and doesn't get investigated.


Bonnie Mott infiltrated the Bud and Leigh or Lee Fields' home as a govemess. She was ordered by Marty Rathbum, one of the heads of the Scientology Intelligence Agency, to murder Bud Fields because he wouldn't sell this boat (Free Winds) that Scientology wanted to Miscavige. Aher Fields was murdered, the boat was bought by Scientology within a one week.

Why do you feel the need to prove the same handful of points over and over again? I'm getting closer to putting my real name and picture to my ID because I find that who a person is in real life is more telling than the internet illusions they create. When people can't engage in a conversation about the topic at hand and like a full time Hubbardist can only spit back non-sequitir quotes and forceful suggestions, it tells me more about that person.

[Vittorio]

REASON WHY...


"Number of times over (Hubbard's) materials equals uncertainty (about Hubbard)."
- Hell Ruin Hoaxard - HCOPL Keeping Sanity Working

Yeah, it might be "all there on OCMB" and all here on ESMB--but there are still, for incognita causa, people who regularly post here (and ostensibly read others' posts here) who keep blithely chattering about "the tech" and states of Clear & Operating Thetan as if they were not fanciful prose from mythology.

Treacherous WordClowns like Hubbard (and his deputized junior WordClown apologists & practitioners) deserve all the repetition & publicity they so dearly crave. We here at ESMB are just humbly trying to tender what is needed and wanted.

Judging by the amount of time you spend on here, racking up an average of 8 posts a day, I don't think your in a position to criticise the people who follow Hubbards words. I'm here to investigate the abuses. If coming online is all about regurgitating the fact that Hubbard never stuck to any subject he ever studied and repetitively punishing him for it like a machine, then I would happily move onto a nother cause which is doing something to help people. Reading Sharone's INSIGHTFUL posts has made me consider adopting a child and that is how a person can make a difference.

Those who are stuck on the net talking about Hubbard/Hubturd are equally stuck in the mind fuck IMO and helping to cement that name even further into history, giving it a level of importance it does not deserve. In the four years since I've registered here, I've been travelling across Europe twice plus three other holidays, been back to college, started a new profession, taken up language studies and now looking to go to university. Next month and the following month I'm off on my travels again. In the new year I will start working towards my adult Bar Mitzvah.

Doing nothing but sitting behind a computer is not an option for me. It has to go hand in hand with helping people get justice, such as the death of Bud Fields. If Marty was involved in his death then it needs investigating. Marty is in the HERE and NOW and out of the Church where he can, for the time being, be contacted. Do you think he really cares if Hubbard ws a Nuclear Physicist or not? of course he don't and neither do a lot of his followers. They know it's not true! Only law enforcement would break their devotion.

[Vittorio]

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?25170-OT-IX-Document-on-Wikileaks

From Marty:

When the folders turned out to contain no holy grail, Broeker then said he had other LRH writings that constituted the keys to OT IX and X.

Another raid ensued – in which I coordinated a squad of armed outside security personnel to secure the premises.

What does this mean? Was Marty willing to order his armed squad to shoot and muder Pat Broeker?

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Soooo...you're saying that Hubbard did not pioneer and invent newclear fizzics?

Not only did Hubbard pioneer and invent newclear fizzics, he invented pioneering and inventing. The Human race was not capable of invention or pioneering until Elron discovered these concepts and gave them to us. Thanks Ron.

[HelluvaHoax!]

Why do you feel the need to prove the same handful of points over and over again? I'm getting closer to putting my real name and picture to my ID because I find that who a person is in real life is more telling than the internet illusions they create. When people can't engage in a conversation about the topic at hand and like a full time Hubbardist can only spit back non-sequitir quotes and forceful suggestions, it tells me more about that person.

Judging by the amount of time you spend on here, racking up an average of 8 posts a day, I don't think your in a position to criticise the people who follow Hubbards words. I'm here to investigate the abuses. If coming online is all about regurgitating the fact that Hubbard never stuck to any subject he ever studied and repetitively punishing him for it like a machine, then I would happily move onto a nother cause which is doing something to help people. Reading Sharone's INSIGHTFUL posts has made me consider adopting a child and that is how a person can make a difference.

Those who are stuck on the net talking about Hubbard/Hubturd are equally stuck in the mind fuck IMO and helping to cement that name even further into history, giving it a level of importance it does not deserve. In the four years since I've registered here, I've been travelling across Europe twice plus three other holidays, been back to college, started a new profession, taken up language studies and now looking to go to university. Next month and the following month I'm off on my travels again. In the new year I will start working towards my adult Bar Mitzvah.

Doing nothing but sitting behind a computer is not an option for me. It has to go hand in hand with helping people get justice, such as the death of Bud Fields. If Marty was involved in his death then it needs investigating. Marty is in the HERE and NOW and out of the Church where he can, for the time being, be contacted. Do you think he really cares if Hubbard ws a Nuclear Physicist or not? of course he don't and neither do a lot of his followers. They know it's not true! Only law enforcement would break their devotion.


Dear Vittorio,

You are so much better as a person than me.

I really, truly appreciate you taking time out from your busy globetrotting schedule to give me all these helpful pointers.

I think it is absolutely amazing that you are "getting close to" putting your real name up in your ID and that you are
"considering adopting a child". I, myself, do not have the extraordinary responsibility level that you have demonstrated in having those thoughts. Actions speak louder than words. And, your actions (having those ideas) is all the proof that I need that you have attained an altitude that I can only dream about.

I am going to try hard to be exactly like you and stop posting things that you would not post.

Thanks again for so generously coming down to my level in order to help me one day rise to yours!

ML,

HelluvaHoax!

[Vittorio]

Dear Vittorio,

You are so much better as a person than me.

I really, truly appreciate you taking time out from your busy schedule to give me all these helpful pointers.

I think it is absolutely amazing that you are "getting close to" putting your real name up in your ID and that you are
"considering adopting a child". I, myself, do not have the extraordinary responsibility level that you have demonstrated in having those thoughts. I never thought about it myself which, again, proves that you are clearly my superior in every moral and ethical way.

I am going to really try hard to be exactly like you and stop posting things that you would not post.

Thanks again for so generously coming down to my level in order to help me one day rise to yours!

ML,

HelluvaHoax!

Saracasm appreciated ;)

:yes:

[Lulu Belle]

Dear Vittorio,

You are so much better as a person than me.

I really, truly appreciate you taking time out from your busy globetrotting schedule to give me all these helpful pointers.

I think it is absolutely amazing that you are "getting close to" putting your real name up in your ID and that you are
"considering adopting a child". I, myself, do not have the extraordinary responsibility level that you have demonstrated in having those thoughts. Actions speak louder than words. And, your actions (having those ideas) is all the proof that I need that you have attained an altitude that I can only dream about.

I am going to try hard to be exactly like you and stop posting things that you would not post.

Thanks again for so generously coming down to my level in order to help me one day rise to yours!

ML,

HelluvaHoax!

:lol:

[HelluvaHoax!]

Judging by the amount of time you spend on here, racking up an average of 8 posts a day, I don't think your in a position to criticise the people who follow Hubbards words. I'm here to investigate the abuses.

If your second sentence was actually true, then you would not have written the first sentence.

WordClown!

[Vittorio]

If your second sentence was actually true, then you would not have written the first sentence.

WordClown!

Depends on what those 8 posts per day here are devoted to. But it shows that you spend more time devoted to this subject than I do! But you don't have anything to offer in terms of decent knowledge of what is going on. Yours and Veda's posts are not aimed at Hubbard, they are aimed at me. You could not respond to the post about Marty potentially ordering Bud Fields death, because you don't have anything to respond with, so you attack me!

I'm not here to have a go at you or Veda.

[HelluvaHoax!]

Depends on what those 8 posts per day here are devoted to. But it shows that you spend more time devoted to this subject than I do! But you don't have anything to offer in terms of decent knowledge of what is going on. Yours and Veda's posts are not aimed at Hubbard, they are aimed at me. You could not respond to the post about Marty potentially ordering Bud Fields death, because you don't have anything to respond with, so you attack me!

I'm not here to have a go at you or Veda.

All that happened in your head? WOW!

Helpful Tip: I did not even know who you are until today. I have never read your posts before. A few hours ago I posted a parody response about Hubbard/Miscavige that had absolutely nothing to do with you. Nobody attacked you. I don't even know who you are and have no reason to attack you.

Then you spent the next several posts trying to make up a bunch of wacky stuff that you attributed to me.

One of the funny parts is when you said: "Judging by the amount of time you spend on here, racking up an average of 8 posts a day, I don't think your in a position to criticise the people who follow Hubbards words."

This is about the most non-sequitur, illogical, nonsensical post I have seen in a long time. Let's break that one down just for fun.

Because I write an average of 8 posts per day, I am therefore not in a position to "criticize the people who follow Hubbard's words." Right?

So, the fact that I have an enormous amount of knowledge about Hubbard and Scientology and write a few paragraphs a day about it disqualifies me from writing about it.

Yeah, we see your point. Only people who know very little about Scientology and have no original thoughts and nothing to say about it have the "position" to write about it. That is EXACTLY what is wrong with Scientology and Scientologists!

Thank you for bringing that to everyone's attention!

And by the way, I don't know how you arrived at the idea that 8 posts a day was some big deal. For a professional writer, 8 posts might just be a brief warmup exercise before facing a ream of blank paper for the day's work.

[Vittorio]

All that happened in your head? WOW!

Helpful Tip: I did not even know who you are until today. I have never read your posts before. A few hours ago I posted a parody response about Hubbard/Miscavige that had absolutely nothing to do with you. Nobody attacked you. I don't even know who you are and have no reason to attack you.

Then you spent the next several posts trying to make up a bunch of wacky stuff that you attributed to me.

One of the funny parts is when you said: "Judging by the amount of time you spend on here, racking up an average of 8 posts a day, I don't think your in a position to criticise the people who follow Hubbards words."

This is about the most non-sequitur, illogical, nonsensical post I have seen in a long time. Let's break that one down just for fun.

Because I write an average of 8 posts per day, I am therefore not in a position to "criticize the people who follow Hubbard's words." Right?

So, the fact that I have an enormous amount of knowledge about Hubbard and Scientology and write a few paragraphs a day about it disqualifies me from writing about it.

Yeah, we see your point. Only people who know very little about Scientology and have no original thoughts and nothing to say about it have the "position" to write about it. That is EXACTLY what is wrong with Scientology and Scientologists!

Thank you for bringing that to everyone's attention!

And by the way, I don't know how you arrived at the idea that 8 posts a day was some big deal. For a professional writer, 8 posts might just be a brief warmup exercise before facing a ream of blank paper for the day's work.

I am an ex-Scientologist and ex-Freezoner.

Like I said, read the content of your posts, it's the same repetitive stuff over and over and over and you find my post revealing about me? There's on old saying 'If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, then say nothing'. If you have some evidence that I'm harming people in some way, then bring it on. Although in all fairness, it is Veda really who is on the attack, worried that I might to be trying to insinuate that the Church was taken over by Rathbun and co and not ordered by Hubbard himself. Problem is Veda, is that your trying to take personal responsibility away from people.

And in case there may be some people around who may believe some of Hubbard's writings, it's not your business to tell them what they should and shouldn't believe. Thats the only reason you came into this thread, because you thought that I may be an Indie Scientologist. They can make informed choices about that on their own. You may not be happy with the fact that you spent years and probably a hell of a lot of time and money on Scientology, being a former C/S (which is a fair bit of training) and I believe you went as far as OT or thereabouts. But I didn't and thats one helluvahoax your going to have to sort out yourself. If it's all a load of rubbish you could have walked out after or even during your first course. The majority do.

[Veda]

-snip-

it is Veda really who is on the attack, worried that I might to be trying to insinuate that the Church was taken over by Rathbun and co and not ordered by Hubbard himself.

-snip-



Huh?:unsure: :dance3::bong::flasher::wife:

Why do I feel as though I'm waiting for a bus in a strange part of town?

[Vittorio]

All that happened in your head? WOW!

Helpful Tip: I did not even know who you are until today. I have never read your posts before. A few hours ago I posted a parody response about Hubbard/Miscavige that had absolutely nothing to do with you. Nobody attacked you. I don't even know who you are and have no reason to attack you.

Then you spent the next several posts trying to make up a bunch of wacky stuff that you attributed to me.

One of the funny parts is when you said: "Judging by the amount of time you spend on here, racking up an average of 8 posts a day, I don't think your in a position to criticise the people who follow Hubbards words."

This is about the most non-sequitur, illogical, nonsensical post I have seen in a long time. Let's break that one down just for fun.

Because I write an average of 8 posts per day, I am therefore not in a position to "criticize the people who follow Hubbard's words." Right?

So, the fact that I have an enormous amount of knowledge about Hubbard and Scientology and write a few paragraphs a day about it disqualifies me from writing about it.

Yeah, we see your point. Only people who know very little about Scientology and have no original thoughts and nothing to say about it have the "position" to write about it. That is EXACTLY what is wrong with Scientology and Scientologists!

Thank you for bringing that to everyone's attention!

And by the way, I don't know how you arrived at the idea that 8 posts a day was some big deal. For a professional writer, 8 posts might just be a brief warmup exercise before facing a ream of blank paper for the day's work.

And as for the amount of posts each day, it shows a clear long term commitment to your devotion to the subject, as a fanatical critic who repeats the words Hubturd, con, wordclown, hoax and a few others over and over and over more times than Ron could say 'now' or 'can you see?'. Being a full blown critic does not mean that people are psychologically OK after leaving Scientology and that they are somehow on a pedestal above those who have nice things to say about their experiences with the Church, their fellow staff, Ron and the tech. Not everything was bad, not in my experience. I know my own mind and when I was lied to, I walked. I wasn't even going to allow an opportunity where I could be messed around. I've seen some people stand up fiercly in the Church, when they were only on a basic course.

Miscavige got where he is because people willingly helped him. Many people willingly supported him. If there are people who spent a lot of time in Scientology and can't take a shred of responsibility for it when they're out, then I don't believe they are telling the truth. Amy Scobee is now saying that anyone who attacks Marty is OSA. We're starting to see the foundations of a whole new CoS being laid.

[Gadfly]

I am an ex-Scientologist and ex-Freezoner.

Like I said, read the content of your posts, it's the same repetitive stuff over and over and over and you find my post revealing about me? There's on old saying 'If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, then say nothing'. If you have some evidence that I'm harming people in some way, then bring it on. Although in all fairness, it is Veda really who is on the attack, worried that I might to be trying to insinuate that the Church was taken over by Rathbun and co and not ordered by Hubbard himself. Problem is Veda, is that your trying to take personal responsibility away from people.

And in case there may be some people around who may believe some of Hubbard's writings, it's not your business to tell them what they should and shouldn't believe. Thats the only reason you came into this thread, because you thought that I may be an Indie Scientologist. They can make informed choices about that on their own. You may not be happy with the fact that you spent years and probably a hell of a lot of time and money on Scientology, being a former C/S (which is a fair bit of training) and I believe you went as far as OT or thereabouts. But I didn't and thats one helluvahoax your going to have to sort out yourself. If it's all a load of rubbish you could have walked out after or even during your first course. The majority do.

I gotta admit that I liked some this post.

It adds . . . . . . how shall I say it . . . . "balance". :confused2:

I would only add on two points.

Hoaxie NEVER gets repetitious to me. He comes up with new and interesting flaws of Hubbard and Scientology, and novel ways to display these with humor. Now maybe some tire of that, but I haven't yet! :no: :omg:

Hoaxie is obviously a very quick thinker, and it is most likely that he spends less time than most to read ESMB, put together, and post his often wonderful little "dramatic exhibits". I wouldn't necessarily ASSUME that he "spends a great deal of time here" based on the volume alone.

While it may be true that Miscavige or some others did "take over" the Church, with or without Hubbard's planning, DM did so to ENSURE that HUBBARD'S exact policies and directions were heavily implemented. The Church of Scientology sucks to the degree that managament is "correctly applying the correct LRH tech". It doesn't matter "who" ordered what. As long as ANY person, Hubbard himself, Miscavige, or some other dictatorial asshole, is carefully "applying Ron's directives on expanding Scientology", so will the insanity, abuses and harm continue.

It does not matter WHO is running the show. As long as ANY version of Scientology includes all extant LRH directives on "how to make Scientology win", with management aiming to get "all these directives implemented", with total pure KSW-fanantical fervor intact, it won't be much different than now.

[Vittorio]

Huh?:unsure: :dance3::bong::flasher::wife:

Why do I feel as though I'm waiting for a bus in a strange part of town?

Veda, you were one of the few people who stood by me when I criticised Terril, Pierre, Marty and the abuses in the Freezone. Abuses I and others experienced first hand. I am grateful for that. But I feel you are always trying to prove a point about Hubbard and that the idea that the Church was taken over 81-84/5 by Miscavige and crew is a lie and that it was all Hubbard. The All About Radiation post was completely out of context. I asked for statistics about the Church from the periods before and after Marty was in management. This question was asked because of all the talk I'd heard from ex's who state the Church was booming before the takeover and because a poll here had shown that that was the time period when the majority of ex's got into Scientology.

If Marty needed armed guards in order to steal information from Pat Broeker, this may suggest otherwise. Broeker would have acted on orders from Hubbard even if someone falsified them.

I think if there is anyone out there who knew somoene who was in Scientology and who they haven't seen in a while, that it is worth checking that they are OK and still around. It pains me to think that someone could have been done away with on the side or is staying in the Church because they feel they have nowhere to go.

[Vittorio]

I gotta admit that I liked some this post.

I adds . . . . . . how shall I say it . . . . "balance". :confused2:

I would only add on two points.

Hoaxie NEVER gets repetitious to me. He comes up with new and interesting flaws of Hubbard and Scientology, and novel ways to display these with humor. Now maybe some tire of that, but I haven't yet! :no: :omg:

Hoaxie is obviously a very quick thinker, and it is most likely that he spends less time than most to read ESMB, put together, and post his often wonderful little "dramatic exhibits". I wouldn't necessarily ASSUME that he "spends a great deal of time here" based on the volume alone.

While it may be true that Miscavige or some others did "take over" the Church, with or without Hubbard's planning, DM did so to ENSURE that HUBBARD'S exact policies and directions were heavily implemented. The Church of Scientology sucks to the degree that managament is "correctly applying the correct LRH tech". It doesn't matter "who" ordered what. As long as ANY person, Hubbard himself, Miscavige, or some other dictatorial asshole, is carefully "applying Ron's directives on expanding Scientology", so will the insanity, abuses and harm continue.

It does not matter WHO is running the show. As long as ANY version of Scientology includes all extant LRH directives on "how to make Scientology win", with management aiming to get "all these directives implemented", with total pure KSW-fanantical fervor intact, it won't be much different than now.

Excellent post Gadfly! And yes, you see a side to Helluvahoax that I haven't.

Any philosophy that asks a person to harm others in order to ensure it's survival and which cannot take fair, balanced and deserved criticism when due is not worth it's salt as far as I'm concerned. Several years back, a couple of ex's called me to their house, knowing that I was no longer doing any Scientology. Both remember me being a good Auditor and that I was being stitched up (as were they). We all had some interest in starting a group then and talked about it. Our concerns were that when certain people came knocking on the door, we'd want to slam it shut! Our ethics officer, DSA, treas sec, qual sec. Hell no! Because we knew that they would start the horror show all over again. A good portion of the guys in Scientology were great people, but there were some, er, 'black hats'. What happens when they leave and want to join the FZ? I must admit when I seen Terril asked 'what about the abuses Marty committed?' and Terril responded with 'What abuses?, DOX please' or something along those lines, I nearly put my fist through the wall! Thats really what got me back on here posting.

Having spent the last few years making new friends, learning new stuff, I seem to have forgotten just how messed up so many Scientology ex's are and how much insanity there is here on the net. I can't do anything about the hurt that others feel, and I don't wish to become a target for that because I have some good experiences I would also like to share.

[Sindy]

Excellent post Gadfly! And yes, you see a side to Helluvahoax that I haven't.



Lurk moar :) You've been registered since 2007. There is not a single poster who has helped me undo the mindfuck more than Hoaxie.

[Veda]

But I feel you are always trying to prove a point about Hubbard and that the idea that the Church was taken over 81-84/5 by Miscavige and crew is a lie and that it was all Hubbard.

-snip-

If Marty needed armed guards in order to steal information from Pat Broeker, this may suggest otherwise. Broeker would have acted on orders from Hubbard even if someone falsified them.

-snip-



What were those orders? "Burn the upper OT levels before Miscavige and Rathbun get ahold of them!"

Hubbard was long dead when the raid on Broeker occurred.

Beyond that, I leave you to your thread.

[Sindy]

IMO, Hubbard needs to be deconstructed on an hourly basis in the Ex C of S community. One needs to step back and view these threads from the perspective of someone who may only read this thread or any other single thread.

The Hubbard trance is thick. Some people never strip it off.

[Mark A. Baker]

And as for the amount of posts each day, it shows a clear long term commitment to your devotion to the subject, as a fanatical critic who repeats the words Hubturd, con, wordclown, hoax and a few others over and over and over more times than Ron could say 'now' or 'can you see?'. Being a full blown critic does not mean that people are psychologically OK after leaving Scientology and that they are somehow on a pedestal above those who have nice things to say about their experiences with the Church, their fellow staff, Ron and the tech. Not everything was bad, not in my experience. I know my own mind and when I was lied to, I walked. I wasn't even going to allow an opportunity where I could be messed around. I've seen some people stand up fiercly in the Church, when they were only on a basic course.

Miscavige got where he is because people willingly helped him. Many people willingly supported him. If there are people who spent a lot of time in Scientology and can't take a shred of responsibility for it when they're out, then I don't believe they are telling the truth. Amy Scobee is now saying that anyone who attacks Marty is OSA. We're starting to see the foundations of a whole new CoS being laid. {emphasis added}

Good post. :yes:


Mark A. Baker

[Smilla]

When Scientology is involved, always read the small print.

http://www.kegel.com/cebit/BridgeOut.jpg

[Gadfly]

And as for the amount of posts each day, it shows a clear long term commitment to your devotion to the subject, as a fanatical critic who repeats the words Hubturd, con, wordclown, hoax and a few others over and over and over more times than Ron could say 'now' or 'can you see?'.

The amount of posts of some here on ESMB, to me, shows a committment to helping others see through the scam. I don't at all see that Hoaxter is "devoted to the subject". He obviously has some interest in the area. I do too, having had great EXPERIENCE in the area. I enjoy applying my "intelligence" to analyzing some of THAT experience with Scientology, as I am sure many others also do, and as I suspect as Hoaxter does. He has a very keen familiarity with the subject and practices of Scientology, and he uses his own intelligence and humor to rip apart various aspects of what IS A HOAX. Call it whatever you want, but Hubbard was primarily a creator of FICTION, a LIAR, one who puts out "mock-ups", and that also manifested in his own biographical content AND the subject of Scientology itself (to no small degree).

I do NOT consider Hoaxter a "fanatical" critic. I think that is PUSHING it way too far. He is a critic. And , he is good at it. Being one who myself got into Scientology quite deeply, at both the subject and Sea Org levels, his humor often touches on aspects of the subject that surely passes over the heads of many. The details and flavor often cracks me up. I am sure it also does so for more than a few others here.

I would also add that for some or many people still heavily overburdened with left-over Scientology indoctrination, which many ex-Church Scios ARE, the repeated use of terms like "Hubturd", "wordclown", "hoax", and "con" are NECESSARY because one is trying to blow through a very thick and well-built wall of Scientology-based delusion. That wall often does NOT immediately fall down with cursory inspection. It needs to be unbuilt, brick by brick. As Syn correctly pointed out, the deconstruction of the Scientology mindfuck can take a LONG time, and can be done from a large variety of "attack angles". To me, MORE is better. The more angles from which one can view some aspect of the BULLSHIT known as Hubbard and Scientology, well, all the better. I do not see that the repeated use of such derogatory terms here is analagous to Hubbard's attempts to HYPNOTIZE his followers.

Yes, I do understand that some people do get some benefit. I also did myself. I freely talk about that. But THAT is FAR LESS in magnitude than the intensity of the MIND FUCK involved that goes along with "any of the good" (where the "good" is mainly a form of "bait" to sucker any person in for the rest of the GREAT AMOUNT of IDIOCY). You may disagree on that balance. But, many others do not.

The attendant or accidental "good" from Scientology, to me, can NEVER justify ANY support of Hubbard, his subject or the C of S. The ONLY value in Scientology is in a very intensive removal of all the EXTENSIVE CRAP from the far rarer decent aspects. But, always realize that the "good stuff" was often placed there to act as grease for the TRAP to better slide in upon.

As some have previously correctly pointed out, if one REMOVES the great deal of nonsense, lunacies and craziness, what is left is NOT really "Scientology".

And, too many people confuse the positive feel-good personal experiences with the REALITY of the mindfuck where one accepts and adopts a HUGE framework known as the Hubbard Scientology paradigm. Said another way, some or too many make an IDENTIFICATION (A=A=A) of the "positive feel-good experience" with the large amount of pure horseshit that IS Scientology. And, said one final way, I don't doubt that WHY any person GAINED had MUCH more to do with HIM or HER than with ANY exact aspect of the "tech of Scientology".

[Vittorio]

Lurk moar :) You've been registered since 2007. There is not a single poster who has helped me undo the mindfuck more than Hoaxie.

I appreciate that Synthia. Lurk moar is probably the WRONG thing to do. Coming on here was a mistake. I've replaced my '3rd dynamic Scientology' with something completely different. I don't believe that that transition has been an easy process for everyone and hence these message boards serve that purpose.

For a window of time I seem to have forgotten that transition and thought that by coming here I could make some difference.

Larry Anderson posted a question asking for forgiveness on the youtube video of a father in the UK who wanted to get his daughter out of Scientology. Thats taking personal responsibility. Larry's closing scene in that very video probably drove more people away than he can imagine, but he's risking no chances. He isn't blaming anyone else and he is obviously concerned that people may have suffered as a result of getting into Scientology on the back of his promotion.

[Gadfly]

I appreciate that Synthia. Lurk moar is probably the WRONG thing to do. Coming on here was a mistake. I've replaced my '3rd dynamic Scientology' with something completely different. I don't believe that that transition has been an easy process for everyone and hence these message boards serve that purpose.

For a window of time I seem to have forgotten that transition and thought that by coming here I could make some difference.

Larry Anderson posted a question asking for forgiveness on the youtube video of a father in the UK who wanted to get his daughter out of Scientology. Thats taking personal responsibility. Larry's closing scene in that very video probably drove more people away than he can imagine, but he's risking no chances. He isn't blaming anyone else and he is obviously concerned that people may have suffered as a result of getting into Scientology on the back of his promotion.

I can't believe how often I have to say this.

IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO.

Yes, a person must accept and believe and participate and contribute to Scientology for it to have ANY "negative effects" as a result.

But also, Hubbard designed it as a system to intentionally CATCH people and to heavily CONTROL them and to USE THEM with great manipulation for his own nefarious ends.

There are TWO SIDES to that coin, and each side is WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE.

I truly HAVE forgiven everything about Scientology. I get very little in terms of ANY "emotional response" about any of it. I know that I caused it for me. But, also, I can calmly and cooly look at the subject and practices and comment on it. In truth I post here mostly to help others untangle themselves from the MINDFUCK, because I feel that I have an ability to look deeply into the whole realm, and that I can at times well explain some aspect of the whole charade. I have long since passed using ESMB as a place for myself to "deconstruct". Once in awhile I see some new angle, but for the most pasrt, I did the majority of my "Internet reading" about Scientology MANY years ago (and I read EVERYTHING I could find, pro and con, for many months - even while still "in" the Church).

I look at it like Jesus might have viewed those hitting him with stones and jabbing him with a spear - forgive them for they know not what they do. I look at the Church of Scientology and most Scientologists the same way. It gets a bit more difficult with Hubbard, but even with him, as I see it, he was MISLED (if only by himself) and REALLY, he did NOT "know what he was doing". No matter how arrogant and pretentious he might have been. I am at a strange point in my own "evolution" where I can't really "blame anyone" for anything. Anything that happens is just "natural". Hurricanes are "natural". Floods are "natural". People and groups who lie and decieve others for personal advantage and gain are "natural". The best recommendation is to stay away from "dangerous natural phenomena". I simply don't look at "people", and infer that this imaginary component called "individual conscious responsibility" makes them anything OTHER than just like ANY OTHER "natural occurence". I deal with ALL, people included, on the level of "behavior".

Granted there is no shortage of such things here on Earth, and it DOES take time and experience to figure that out.

[Mark A. Baker]

... I would also add that for some or many people still heavily overburdened with left-over Scientology indoctrination, which many ex-Church Scios ARE, the repeated use of terms like "Hubturd", "wordclown", "hoax", and "con" are NECESSARY because one is trying to blow through a very thick and well-built wall of Scientology-based delusion. That wall often does NOT immediately fall down with cursory inspection. It needs to be unbuilt, brick by brick. ...

No. The reporting of fact and the appeal to reason works far better. It may take longer with some individuals but the effect is more certain and the result far less damaging.

Such tactics as you have deemed here as 'necessary' merely seek to justify & inflame anger and to create violent attitudes. Thus they ensure the continuance of ignorance and hatred. They have as their intent the deliberate goal of making others wrong for their beliefs rather than an intent of helping another to achieve a fuller understanding.

And you needn't take my word for it; just pull out a copy of the Dhammapada.


Mark A. Baker

[Mark A. Baker]

... For a window of time I seem to have forgotten that transition and thought that by coming here I could make some difference. ...

You can. However, not everyone on the board is willing to experience the perspectives you may have to offer either for themselves, or in seeing others possibly influenced by your perspectives.


Mark A. Baker

[Gadfly]

No. The reporting of fact and the appeal to reason works far better. It may take longer with some individuals but the effect is more certain and the result far less damaging.

Such tactics as you have deemed here as 'necessary' merely seek to justify & inflame anger and to create violent attitudes. Thus they ensure the continuance of ignorance and hatred. They have as their intent the deliberate goal of making others wrong for their beliefs rather than an intent of helping another to achieve a fuller understanding.

And you needn't take my word for it; just pull out a copy of the Dhammapada.

Mark A. Baker

Viewpoint flip.

Well, you are probably right. There is no doubt that for people at a certain still closely-attached to Scientology point, they are often unable to comfortably view valid criticisms, sometimes because they can't get past the "denigration" of Hubbard or gratuitous peeing on some aspect of the Church of Scientology such a person might still hold in "high regard".

Probably, for some of them, simple objective statements, without all of the "name calling", might be more helpful.

But then, sometimes the word "hoax", or "con", or "Blubbard" BEST describes the point to be made. Granted, an OVERUSE of such terms, when not fully appropriate, might not be the "most productive". But, there ARE many aspects to Scientology where it functions as a HOAX. It is what it is. Though, yes, pushing that in some people's faces will result in them "resisting" or "being made wrong". In the end, some people will feel as is they have been "made wrong" no matter how carefully one walks on the eggs.

Also though, for some people, people who have NEVER allowed themselves to call Hubbard anything other than "Man's best friend", the use of name-calling CAN be fun, liberating and actually ACT to help push one further along the channel of Freedom From Scientology.

[Sindy]

I appreciate that Synthia. Lurk moar is probably the WRONG thing to do. Coming on here was a mistake. I've replaced my '3rd dynamic Scientology' with something completely different. I don't believe that that transition has been an easy process for everyone and hence these message boards serve that purpose.

For a window of time I seem to have forgotten that transition and thought that by coming here I could make some difference.

Larry Anderson posted a question asking for forgiveness on the youtube video of a father in the UK who wanted to get his daughter out of Scientology. Thats taking personal responsibility. Larry's closing scene in that very video probably drove more people away than he can imagine, but he's risking no chances. He isn't blaming anyone else and he is obviously concerned that people may have suffered as a result of getting into Scientology on the back of his promotion.

Vittorio, I like you so far, I do but do you have any idea of what I have done to help expose the criminal entity, the C of S, outside of this message board? Do you know what anyone else has done? It's plenty and I most likely would not have done what I have done if it weren't for this message board.

Good on ya for writing that letter to Marty. I respect your right to make whatever point you wish to make but the one you think you are making about those who post here and what you are assuming about ALL of their activities is not getting through.

Instead of assuming that you know something that you don't, you might just have to dig in and get more information and get to know the people here a bit more.

If you don't want to do that, which is totally your right, then I wouldn't assume and start pointing fingers. It's just gonna flap back in your face - not because people reactively don't like having their flaws pointed out but because you are simply off base about what you perceive to be flaws.

[Mark A. Baker]

... Also though, for some people, people who have NEVER allowed themselves to call Hubbard anything other than "Man's best friend", the use of name-calling CAN be fun, liberating and actually ACT to help push one further along the channel of Freedom From Scientology.

Not everything that appears to be 'fun' is thereby an act of wisdom.


Mark A. Baker

[Sindy]

Not everything that appears to be 'fun' is thereby an act of wisdom.


Mark A. Baker

Please further pontificate...I am not following.

[HelluvaHoax!]

I am an ex-Scientologist and ex-Freezoner.

Like I said, read the content of your posts, it's the same repetitive stuff over and over and over and you find my post revealing about me? There's on old saying 'If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, then say nothing'. If you have some evidence that I'm harming people in some way, then bring it on. Although in all fairness, it is Veda really who is on the attack, worried that I might to be trying to insinuate that the Church was taken over by Rathbun and co and not ordered by Hubbard himself. Problem is Veda, is that your trying to take personal responsibility away from people.

And in case there may be some people around who may believe some of Hubbard's writings, it's not your business to tell them what they should and shouldn't believe. Thats the only reason you came into this thread, because you thought that I may be an Indie Scientologist. They can make informed choices about that on their own. You may not be happy with the fact that you spent years and probably a hell of a lot of time and money on Scientology, being a former C/S (which is a fair bit of training) and I believe you went as far as OT or thereabouts. But I didn't and thats one helluvahoax your going to have to sort out yourself. If it's all a load of rubbish you could have walked out after or even during your first course. The majority do.

I am an ex-Scientologist and ex-Freezoner.
Nice to meet you and know what labels you are not. Perhaps you are now a member of the Indie Church of Lableology that makes the label more label.

Like I said, read the content of your posts, it's the same repetitive stuff over and over and over and you find my post revealing about me?
When you keep posting over and over about how I keep posting over and over---that's something other than repetitive, right?

There's on old saying 'If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, then say nothing'.
lololololololololololololololololololololol
Did ya get that Emma? Henceforth, please be sure to ban anyone with critical thoughts or natter about Hubbard or Scientology. Hey, Emma, let's really get the Manners PL put in here at ESMB and not put CI on Vittorio's lines.

If you have some evidence that I'm harming people in some way, then bring it on.
This sounds mental. I have no idea what you are doing, never wondered about you and couldn't care less. The only person who keeps talking about "evidence" is you, dude. I am just a poster having fun on ESMB. If it freaks you out to be around people thinking freely & creatively & laughing, maybe there are "safer spaces" you would enjoy more.

And in case there may be some people around who may believe some of Hubbard's writings, it's not your business to tell them what they should and shouldn't believe.
It's not my business? LOLOLOL. OMG, what have we here, a forum dictator? Hey, thanks for offering your thought-police-basics, but no thanks--we still have plenty of unopened boxes of that useless crap from Ron's cult.

They can make informed choices about that on their own.
Who, Scientologists? LOLOL. No they can't. If 60 years of Scientology has proven anything, it's that Scientologists are fully incapable of making informed choices--because they are not informed. What the hell do you think ESMB is? Wake up, dude, it's information. That's how people get "informed".

You may not be happy with the fact that you spent years and probably a hell of a lot of time and money on Scientology, being a former C/S (which is a fair bit of training) and I believe you went as far as OT or thereabouts. But I didn't and thats one helluvahoax your going to have to sort out yourself. If it's all a load of rubbish you could have walked out after or even during your first course. The majority do.
Wow, you're so much better than others! It must be amazing to have such altitude. We probably should not speculate here how you rose above everyone else.

[HelluvaHoax!]

No. The reporting of fact and the appeal to reason works far better. It may take longer with some individuals but the effect is more certain and the result far less damaging.

Such tactics as you have deemed here as 'necessary' merely seek to justify & inflame anger and to create violent attitudes. Thus they ensure the continuance of ignorance and hatred. They have as their intent the deliberate goal of making others wrong for their beliefs rather than an intent of helping another to achieve a fuller understanding.

And you needn't take my word for it; just pull out a copy of the Dhammapada.



Scientology: "What do your materials state?"

Bakerology: "What do your Dhamm materials state?"

[Smilla]

I understand that people value the benefits that they feel they gained through Scientology and can feel undermined when people speak dismissively of it.

My own feeling is that Scientology *can* bring subjective benefits, but none that can't be obtained elsewhere, without all the negative mind-bending that always comes with Scientology.

At times I feel I've been a bit heavy-handed in my criticism, but one big thing I've learned is that even if I disagree totally with someone, I can still like them, and them me. Some of the people I like most here are people with whom I have the least in common.

But

This isn't a place that functions according to Scientology principles. There is no *right* to ARC, validation, granting of beingness, and undisturbed havingness re 'wins'.

Just like in the real world amongst the lovely Wogs :)

[Sindy]

I understand that people value the benefits that they feel they gained through Scientology and can feel undermined when people speak dismissively of it.

My own feeling is that Scientology *can* bring subjective benefits, but none that can't be obtained elsewhere, without all the negative mind-bending that always comes with Scientology.

At times I feel I've been a bit heavy-handed in my criticism, but one big thing I've learned is that even if I disagree totally with someone, I can still like them, and them me. Some of the people I like most here are people with whom I have the least in common.

But

This isn't a place that functions according to Scientology principles. There is no *right* to ARC, validation, granting of beingness, and undisturbed havingness re 'wins'.

Just like in the real world amongst the lovely Wogs :)


Very nicely said.

I can see how someone could take offense to the criticism of something one thought was helpful to them. Me, I readily admit that I was helped and I know exactly what helped me. No amount of criticism is going to take that away and I feel no need to assert it to keep it alive.

For me, the danger is on the other side. The con was so deep and the betrayal so intense, that it is very easy for the mind to avoid the truth, slap it back, be "reasonable" (if you will), and continue to live with lies. LRH's lies are so incredible that they are the best safeguard against anyone really looking at them. A sane, rational person has a hard time believing they could be so blatant and vicious.

It takes constant, constant, digging through the layers of the onion to undo this stuff.

Deconstructing Hubbard is necessary. What if new people to the subject thought that the problem was only with Miscavige? Then what?

Yes, Miscavige is in present time. Yes, dealing with him and the current C of S is an immediate need but, if anyone is mistaken and believes that once Miscavige is out and the human rights abuses (temporarily) cease, that it's safe to go back in, they have another thing coming.

[HelluvaHoax!]

I understand that people value the benefits that they feel they gained through Scientology and can feel undermined when people speak dismissively of it.

My own feeling is that Scientology *can* bring subjective benefits, but none that can't be obtained elsewhere, without all the negative mind-bending that always comes with Scientology.

At times I feel I've been a bit heavy-handed in my criticism, but one big thing I've learned is that even if I disagree totally with someone, I can still like them, and them me. Some of the people I like most here are people with whom I have the least in common.

But

This isn't a place that functions according to Scientology principles. There is no *right* to ARC, validation, granting of beingness, and undisturbed havingness re 'wins'.

Just like in the real world amongst the lovely Wogs :)



Well, your point brings up one of the most fascinating things about many Scientologists and Indie Scientologists.

Despite their "OT powers" and "attack tech" and "altitude" they are really quite weak and unstable when outside of the carefully insulated and controlled cult eco-system.

Let's take a real ferocious, fair-gamer like Joel, the guy from Religious Freedom Watch. What happens when he is out of the protective theta cult bubble where real people have real ideas and really say them?

Culties get very freaked out when people actually act FREE instead of only talking about "Total Freedom".

Here is one of my favorite moments of all time when a Scientologist tries to get a WOG to "grant them beingness". It is so pathetically cringeworthy I have to cross post it from the Stupid Thread...




The time Joel (Religious Freedom Watch) the OT confronted and shattered international super-sp, Andreas (OCMB) Heldt Heldal-Lund.

Only one slight problem.

Joel the OT was humiliatingly shattered and reduced to pathetically stammering and stuttering asking a wog:

(25:00 to 26:05)


"Please--gra--gra--grant--grant me more Beingness than that!"

An OT begging an SP to grant them beingness? !!! As if that is a universal idea that all people recognize and cherish. Only a Scientologist would not see the cosmic humor in that.

OMG, that is one of the greatest demonstrations that OT tech doesn't work ever captured on film!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rg3bm0bOkI

[Smilla]

Very nicely said.

I can see how someone could take offense to the criticism of something one thought was helpful to them. Me, I readily admit that I was helped and I know exactly what helped me. No amount of criticism is going to take that away and I feel no need to assert it to keep it alive.

Same here.

For me, the danger is on the other side. The con was so deep and the betrayal so intense, that it is very easy for the mind to avoid the truth, slap it back, be "reasonable" (if you will), and continue to live with lies. LRH's lies are so incredible that they are the best safeguard against anyone really looking at them. A sane, rational person has a hard time believe they could be so blatant and vicious.

I agree. On the rare occasions when I've tried to explain something about the dark side of Scientology to someone, I don't think I've ever really got the message across. It's just too much for most people to take in, unless they're willing to do a lot of reading.

It takes constant, constant, digging through the layers of the onion to undo this stuff.

That's true and I catch myself sometimes *thinking Scientology thoughts* instead of thinking my own thoughts. It's very subtle, very invasive.

Deconstructing Hubbard is necessary. What if new people to the subject thought that the problem was only with Miscavige? Then what?

Ron Hubbard was an absolute mess of a person who failed at everything thing that really matters.

Failed as a student. Failed as a Naval Officer. Failed as a husband. Failed as a father. Failed as a musician. Failed as a photographer. Failed as a movie maker. The big big thing is that he failed as a writer. He sold a lot of books, but the books were badly written garbage. All of them. I think he knew it too, and that it was part of what drove him mad.

Hubbard the human was a loser, so 'LRH' was invented. 'LRH' is everything Hubbard wanted to be but couldn't, everything he needed people to believe he was, mixed with everything that his followers needed to believe him to be.

Like Big Brother in Orwell's 1984, 'LRH' will never grow old, never make a mistake, never be wrong, never die.

Yes, Miscavige is in present time. Yes, dealing with hi m and the current C of S is an immediate need but, if anyone is mistaken and believes that once Miscavige is out and the human rights abuses (temporarily) cease, that it's safe to go back in, they have another thing coming.

Miscavige isn't the problem. Scientology is the problem. Miscavige is a symptom. He's the ultimate Scientologist.

Just realised I'm ranting... Sorry!

[HelluvaHoax!]

It takes constant, constant, digging through the layers of the onion to undo this stuff.




It's the RPF
(Ron Project Force)
Grab one and. . .

http://secure.awardmastersinc.com/applications/default/images/products/aaa-shovel_300.jpghttp://secure.awardmastersinc.com/applications/default/images/products/aaa-shovel_300.jpg http://secure.awardmastersinc.com/applications/default/images/products/aaa-shovel_300.jpg

DIG IT BABY!

[HelluvaHoax!]

Miscavige isn't the problem. Scientology is the problem. Miscavige is a symptom. He's the ultimate Scientologist.

I just spoke with both Dave and Ron.

They told me to tell you that they put your eternity in a volcano and are going to drop an atomic bomb on it if you don't come to your senses and stop posting crazy lies.

Smilla, I am begging you, please stop this madness now while there is still time.

Offer to make amends. They haven't closed the door on you, honey, you can still make it! The crack is still open a bit, or something like that.

Whatever you are supposed to do with the Scientology crack, just do it! (smoke it, kiss it....)

[Smilla]

Well, your point brings up one of the most fascinating things about many Scientologists and Indie Scientologists.

Despite their "OT powers" and "attack tech" and "altitude" they are really quite weak and unstable when outside of the carefully insulated and controlled cult eco-system.

That's what I see, too. They have to mollycoddled (handled with ARC), patted on the back all the time (validated), agreed with (acknowledged), and complimented (granted beingness), about every little thing they say and do. It's like dealing with a nervous teenager, who's overcompensating like mad, because they have no real self-confidence. For a Scientologist, someone disagreeing with them is an emergency.

Let's take a real ferocious, fair-gamer like Joel, the guy from Religious Freedom Watch. What happens when he is out of the protective theta cult bubble where real people have real ideas and really say them?

He needs to be in an 'Org-like' situation to feel his amazingness. Outside of that environment, he's just some guy with weird and creepy ideas.

Culties get very freaked out when people actually act FREE instead of only talking about "Total Freedom".

It frightens them and makes them feel that 'their reality' is falling apart. Pretty fragile reality!

Here is one of my favorite moments of all time when a Scientologist tries to get a WOG to "grant them beingness". It is so pathetically cringeworthy I have to cross post it from the Stupid Thread...

It's obvious that he was working from a very often drilled script that like everything else in Scientology doesn't work very well in the real world.


The 'ARC Break' is a laugh. It's a kind of mini nervous breakdown that Scientologists have when things don't go completely their way, and the higher up the Bridge they are, the worse it gets.

And the worst thing, the unforgivable thing, about Scientology is that it's not sexy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n48L96ThBDY

[lotus]

I've read these last posts of you guys.

This is a very interesting discussion :thumbsup:

[Student of Trinity]

What is this 'granting beingness' business, anyway? I've run into the term quite a bit, but as far as I can see, it just means acknowledging that somebody has their own point of view. Or is it in effect a code for something a bit different?

It sounds as though to 'grant someone beingness' means, in practice, to give them respect and inclusion. That would make the 'beingness' term less overblown that it may sound, because people often really crave respect and inclusion, to the point where losing them can really feel like losing existence. All the psychological and cultural aspects of military training are based on the fact that, to retain the respect of their small group of buddies, humans will risk their lives. If any other inducement to hazard were more effective, armies would be using it instead.

Respect is a precious prize to offer people. Giving people that steady glow of belonging to a group and being respected within it is probably even more important, as a reward for being a Scientologist, than the 'auditing high'. My impression here is that Scientology offers respect cheap, but under rigid conditions, like a package tour. I guess it can be a shock to discover, if you step off the cruise ship, that the mai tais are no longer free.

[lotus]

I beleive the ''respect'' issue you explain is very true - I would add - also ''admiration'' issue!

But in scamology - Respect and admiration from the groups is
very expensive :nervous: and is not the genuine respect and admiration we naturally get for what we represent deep within the heart of people.

I also find , scamology, is made of ''military'' acknowledgement of how is your value and what you deserve -
and that the group agree to such degree provided, because you are an Oatie or let's say International slavery association patron or whatever - or a celebrity who deserve a gold medal..........

[Mark A. Baker]

What is this 'granting beingness' business, anyway? I've run into the term quite a bit, but as far as I can see, it just means acknowledging that somebody has their own point of view. Or is it in effect a code for something a bit different? ...

Tech Dictionary ...

GRANT BEINGNESS, the ability to assume or grant (give, allow) beingness is probably the highest of human virtures. It is even more important to be able to permit [allow] other people to have beingness than to be able oneself to assume it. (FOT, p.27)

BEINGNESS, 1. the resort of having assumed an identity. (LRH Def. Nots) ...


Granting of beingness is the conscious & profound acceptance of another being as that person chooses to manifest himself and without any implicit expectation or requirement that his beingness conforms to some 'acceptable standard' in order to allow acceptance. It is something which can be continually improved only through addressing one's own attitudes and personal considerations at a deep spiritual level.

It's really a reflection of one's own personal state of mind about others, not solely the manner in which one treats others.

A person might 'treat another with respect' and nonetheless have unexpressed personal attitudes which are highly disrespectful of the other being. To that degree he fails to grant beingness. So 'respect for others' is only a part of the idea, it doesn't really cover it.


Mark A. Baker

[degraded being]

Tech Dictionary ...


Granting of beingness is the conscious & profound acceptance of another being as that person chooses to manifest himself and without any implicit expectation or requirement that his beingness conforms to some 'acceptable standard' in order to allow acceptance. It is something which can be continually improved only through addressing one's own attitudes and personal considerations at a deep spiritual level.

It's really a reflection of one's own personal state of mind about others, not solely the manner in which one treats others.

A person might 'treat another with respect' and nonetheless have unexpressed personal attitudes which are highly disrespectful of the other being. To that degree he fails to grant beingness. So 'respect for others' is only a part of the idea, it doesn't really cover it.


Mark A. Baker

Sounds complicated.

I like the bit about people treating people who they don't really like with respect. Sounds like a holiday in Japan.

[I told you I was trouble]

Sounds complicated.

I like the bit about people treating people who they don't really like with respect. Sounds like a holiday in Japan.







Lol!

It's always complicated because its only purpose was to baffle the fools that were (and apparently still are) buying it.

Anyone here feel that hubbard 'granted beingness' to others?

The closest to 'granting beingness' to another that I ever observed in scientology was when a reg was in full on regging/acting mode, and then only until they had the money in their sticky little culty hands ... after that the prospect/mark could just bugger off and normal mode was instantly resumed!

:lol:

[degraded being]

Lol!

It's always complicated because its only purpose was to baffle the fools that were (and apparently still are) buying it.

Anyone here feel that hubbard 'granted beingness' to others?

The closest to 'granting beingness' to another that I ever observed in scientology was when a reg was in full on regging/acting mode, and then only until they had the money in their sticky little culty hands ... after that the prospect/mark could just bugger off and normal mode was instantly resumed!

:lol:


It sounds so grand doesn't it? Grant Beingness. Like an old Queen after she's finally convinced her master to place the crown of nirvana on her head.

[Vittorio]

I understand that people value the benefits that they feel they gained through Scientology and can feel undermined when people speak dismissively of it.

My own feeling is that Scientology *can* bring subjective benefits, but none that can't be obtained elsewhere, without all the negative mind-bending that always comes with Scientology.

At times I feel I've been a bit heavy-handed in my criticism, but one big thing I've learned is that even if I disagree totally with someone, I can still like them, and them me. Some of the people I like most here are people with whom I have the least in common.

But

This isn't a place that functions according to Scientology principles. There is no *right* to ARC, validation, granting of beingness, and undisturbed havingness re 'wins'.

Just like in the real world amongst the lovely Wogs :)


Your one of my favourite posters here! You have a great sense of humour sometimes.

I'm not 'offended' because someone came here to knock something I found usefull. I'm a little confused as to why two posters thought they'd post their crapola in the most random of places because they thought I was a Scientologist! And they have no right to do that anyway. No one should be used as a target because what they believe.

The best people I have ever met say bad things about nobody. I have to say that I am not buying some of the stories here and some of the most fucked up sadistic people on the inside who obsessively and fanatically trapped people for years, have ended up somewhere on the outside, continuing in the same fashion. Marty, Amy, Pierre IMO don't have any place dealing with people's psychological state and neither do most of you guys.

[Vittorio]

Not everything that appears to be 'fun' is thereby an act of wisdom.


Mark A. Baker

Sometimes people with a lack of certainty about themselves try to destroy what others have. It's like the playground bully, who with friends behind him, believes he can attack someone else for being different.

I've had people do it to me for being Jewish; I've had people make hissing sounds in the street or shout abuse from a car and they have all manner of 'logical' reasons for it being OK. These guys who find it so easy to take the piss out of others, will turn on others when they haven't got their regular victim around. Thats why when I hear (and I have) people say stuff to me like 'Black people are..... .... but I'm not a racist' I stop them in their tracks. Or when a former colleague thought I might enjoy ridiculing one of his muslim colleagues behind her back or find it funny that they openly make fun of her beliefs in front of her, I didn't. All I see is chewed up people in front of me. Lacking anything of their own, they latch onto other people and try and gradually undo them or make them doubt everything they hold dear. Like flies sticking to shit.

[Vittorio]

I am an ex-Scientologist and ex-Freezoner.
Nice to meet you and know what labels you are not. Perhaps you are now a member of the Indie Church of Lableology that makes the label more label.

Like I said, read the content of your posts, it's the same repetitive stuff over and over and over and you find my post revealing about me?
When you keep posting over and over about how I keep posting over and over---that's something other than repetitive, right?

There's on old saying 'If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, then say nothing'.
lololololololololololololololololololololol
Did ya get that Emma? Henceforth, please be sure to ban anyone with critical thoughts or natter about Hubbard or Scientology. Hey, Emma, let's really get the Manners PL put in here at ESMB and not put CI on Vittorio's lines.

If you have some evidence that I'm harming people in some way, then bring it on.
This sounds mental. I have no idea what you are doing, never wondered about you and couldn't care less. The only person who keeps talking about "evidence" is you, dude. I am just a poster having fun on ESMB. If it freaks you out to be around people thinking freely & creatively & laughing, maybe there are "safer spaces" you would enjoy more.

And in case there may be some people around who may believe some of Hubbard's writings, it's not your business to tell them what they should and shouldn't believe.
It's not my business? LOLOLOL. OMG, what have we here, a forum dictator? Hey, thanks for offering your thought-police-basics, but no thanks--we still have plenty of unopened boxes of that useless crap from Ron's cult.

They can make informed choices about that on their own.
Who, Scientologists? LOLOL. No they can't. If 60 years of Scientology has proven anything, it's that Scientologists are fully incapable of making informed choices--because they are not informed. What the hell do you think ESMB is? Wake up, dude, it's information. That's how people get "informed".

You may not be happy with the fact that you spent years and probably a hell of a lot of time and money on Scientology, being a former C/S (which is a fair bit of training) and I believe you went as far as OT or thereabouts. But I didn't and thats one helluvahoax your going to have to sort out yourself. If it's all a load of rubbish you could have walked out after or even during your first course. The majority do.
Wow, you're so much better than others! It must be amazing to have such altitude. We probably should not speculate here how you rose above everyone else.

Were you ever even a Scientologist? You say you were a C/S, but nothing in your posts ever seems to indicate much contact with the subject. Do you have a 'Story from inside?' on this board that I can read?

[Smilla]

Your one of my favourite posters here! You have a great sense of humour sometimes.

I'm not 'offended' because someone came here to knock something I found usefull. I'm a little confused as to why two posters thought they'd post their crapola in the most random of places because they thought I was a Scientologist! And they have no right to do that anyway. No one should be used as a target because what they believe.

The best people I have ever met say bad things about nobody. I have to say that I am not buying some of the stories here and some of the most fucked up sadistic people on the inside who obsessively and fanatically trapped people for years, have ended up somewhere on the outside, continuing in the same fashion. Marty, Amy, Pierre IMO don't have any place dealing with people's psychological state and neither do most of you guys.

Thanks. I wasn't speaking about you in particular my post - just how some exes who still believe can be. Glad you haven't left as I do like you :)

[Free to shine]

Your one of my favourite posters here! You have a great sense of humour sometimes.

I'm not 'offended' because someone came here to knock something I found usefull. I'm a little confused as to why two posters thought they'd post their crapola in the most random of places because they thought I was a Scientologist! And they have no right to do that anyway. No one should be used as a target because what they believe.

The best people I have ever met say bad things about nobody. I have to say that I am not buying some of the stories here and some of the most fucked up sadistic people on the inside who obsessively and fanatically trapped people for years, have ended up somewhere on the outside, continuing in the same fashion. Marty, Amy, Pierre IMO don't have any place dealing with people's psychological state and neither do most of you guys.

To help with your confusion....
It's not all about you. The "crapola" you refer to is either references that the wider public need to see, or satire and laughs on the same subject. Many, many people read and never post. And every poster here has as much right as you to post. Nobody owns a thread.

And as for your last statement, don't be so judgemental. It makes you look like a bigoted scientologist and then you'll be the butt of more jokes. Have you read Amy's book by any chance? Or my story? Or any of the stories here? Who here is "dealing with people's psychological state"? What on earth are you on about?

[I told you I was trouble]

snipped (and my emphasis)

The best people I have ever met say bad things about nobody. I have to say that I am not buying some of the stories here and some of the most fucked up sadistic people on the inside who obsessively and fanatically trapped people for years, have ended up somewhere on the outside, continuing in the same fashion. Marty, Amy, Pierre IMO don't have any place dealing with people's psychological state and neither do most of you guys.



Well, that is something we can probably agree on ... but then apart from a few silly Freezoner/Indies most (if not all) ESMB members are not trying to deal with peoples psychological state, they are simply Ex-scientologists communally washing away the detritus of a nasty cultic experience.

OK?

[Sindy]

Were you ever even a Scientologist? You say you were a C/S, but nothing in your posts ever seems to indicate much contact with the subject. Do you have a 'Story from inside?' on this board that I can read?

Vittorio, do you have a story that can be read? Here's mine:

http://leavingscientology.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/standing-up-to-be-counted-synthia-fagen/

[Mark A. Baker]

Sounds complicated.

I like the bit about people treating people who they don't really like with respect. Sounds like a holiday in Japan.

It's certainly a good start. Whether the other is complicated is a matter of perspective. It is difficult, but sometimes it's the simple things which are the most difficult.


Mark A. Baker

[HelluvaHoax!]

Were you ever even a Scientologist? You say you were a C/S, but nothing in your posts ever seems to indicate much contact with the subject. Do you have a 'Story from inside?' on this board that I can read?


Congratulations!

You have joined Mark Baker in the profoundly brilliant Operating Obnosis Org.


Have you ever even read the Basics? (Baker)
Were you ever even a Scientologist? (Vittorio)


Congratulations again...you have been awarded a Professional WordClown (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wordclown) Certificate.

[Voltaire's Child]

My husband once said (he's an Indie Scientologist) that the Golden Rule of Scn (by which he means the philosophy. He cannot stand the cult.) is not "treat others as you would want to be treated" but, rather, "treat others as THEY would like to be treated."

[Winston Smith]

My husband once said (he's an Indie Scientologist) that the Golden Rule of Scn (by which he means the philosophy. He cannot stand the cult.) is not "treat others as you would want to be treated" but, rather, "treat others as THEY would like to be treated."

But ofcourse only the cult knows how THEY would like to be treated. :roflmao:

[Sindy]

Vittorio, do you have a story that can be read? Here's mine:

http://leavingscientology.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/standing-up-to-be-counted-synthia-fagen/

No, I didn't think so.

[I told you I was trouble]

It's certainly a good start. Whether the other is complicated is a matter of perspective. It is difficult, but sometimes it's the simple things which are the most difficult.


Mark A. Baker



True.

Dumping the cult in its entirety sounds simple (if you say it fast) but to be really honest ... it wasn't, it was difficult.

Best difficult thing I ever did though.

:happydance:

[HelluvaHoax!]

Originally Posted by Synthia
Vittorio, do you have a story that can be read? Here's mine:

http://leavingscientology.wordpress....synthia-fagen/


No, I didn't think so.


lolol

Well I was expecting a cricket symphony on that as well...

Here is the question I wonder about...The guy has been on this message board since January of 2007. Then he posts this to me.


Originally Posted by Vittorio
Were you ever even a Scientologist?

You say you were a C/S, but nothing in your posts ever seems to indicate much contact with the subject.

Do you have a 'Story from inside?' on this board that I can read?


Who or what would say something that was such an absurdly obvious lie?

Obvious lie = Obvious answer.

And I thought he was merely a WordClown. LOL

[Voltaire's Child]

But ofcourse only the cult knows how THEY would like to be treated. :roflmao:

Ah, but he's not IN the cult. He despises CofS.

[Mark A. Baker]

True.

Dumping the cult in its entirety sounds simple (if you say it fast) but to be really honest ... it wasn't, it was difficult.

Best difficult thing I ever did though.

:happydance:

I believe you.


Mark A. Baker

[Auditor's Toad]

lolol

Well I was expecting a cricket symphony on that as well...

Here is the question I wonder about...The guy has been on this message board since January of 2007. Then he posts this to me.




Who or what would say something that was such an absurdly obvious lie?

Obvious lie = Obvious answer.

And I thought he was merely a WordClown. LOL

Gosh, I miss all the posts by V. That one got me to violate one of my own rules. I put that one on ignore some time back as I've already spent too many years listening to that shit to not know who is spewing it. I just skip the scientologists these days.