Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Freezone, Independents, and Other Flavors of Scien' started by Irayam, Jan 6, 2018.
Again, I disagree...
But it’s fine, you can think that way.
My first posts to the net were critical, and Many have been critical since. I spent 7 years protesting outside COS
establishments. I also had great successes with auditing
myself and the same for very many that I know. I freely acknowledge that CO$ has fucked up the whole subject
and made it a laughing stock and is in fact destroying
the subject and turning people away from it in droves.
This whole thing makes about as much sense as $cientology.
I think that you have every right to judge Scientology. I think Irayam has the same right. You seemed to be saying, earlier, that, because Irayam expressed a negative opinion about Scientology that they were "prejudiced" and had no right to judge Scientology.
Just pointing out your hypocrisy.
No hypocrisy. Note that I have probably expressed
more negative opinions than he ever has and possibly ever will.
Just pointing out that opinions from a prejudiced viewpoint
may not be the best source of data, for him and all who read him.
Here I will post some videos, and there are many others,
from a friend, Phil Spickler, who I persuaded to make them,
was a friend of Hubbard and worked with him in the fifties. Was also on the first briefing course and worked as a class 8 C/S in LA who I believe had at least 2 declares.
He has included in them very serious criticism of Hubbard and CO$, and went to tears at the loss of his Friend.
On the Ron's Org thing.
I can only comment from the perspective of dealing with the outcomes/results I have seen produced by "Ron's Org tech" . . . each person of which has had to do repair actions.
Example: I have a Spanish speaking person on my Knowledgism Practice Group Forum (http://knowledgism-practice-group.org) She is a mature woman, in her 50's or 60's and a qualified and licensed MD, specializing in natural medicine. Indeed she headed up a clinic in Colombia when she first connected up with me, but has recently moved to Mexico.
She did both Scn and all of Capt Bill's stuff . . . something like "OT15" or something.
I give you this info in order to convey to you just how bum that tech is . . . it seems to me it is even more intensely erroneous than Hubbard's stuff but without the organizational abuse!
Here is something she posted on the forum . . . note that she does not speak or write English. She composes in Spanish and then does a Google translate to English for her posts, with the result we all share a giggle at the grammar and syntax goofs.
This post from February last year. It is the second or third post she made after joining our group and beginning to get her case damage repaired . . . to be noted is that this gain occurred from reading the stuff on the forum . . . not any processing given.
Here is another example of Ron's Org/Scn tech screw up that we have had to clean up. This post dated April last year.
These are but two examples of the the tech fuggups I have seen resulting from Ron's Org practice . . . I have a number of other guys/gals getting themselves cleaned up with Alan's tech . . . and they do it solo: it's a read the materials available and apply it deal.
All the bum she has been through and you still foist repair actions on her? Seriously?
Thank you RogerB,
I had to look what is knowledgism. The fact that knowledgism has a connection to Scientology, even if it's tenuous, is too much of a problem for me to be more interested in it. My Scientology years act like a vaccine, I suppose...
Anyway, thanks for your answer!
Phil is excellent. Did some as-is ing myself from his data. Thanks for posting.
You have to be INT OUT, outside your gourd to appreciate Alan Walter.
Why do you say this, Hat?
Because, It seems I never 'get' what Alan Walter is actually saying until I am more exterior, and then go back and look at it later. He sees things more like an engineer or builder, looking at matrixes from above or outside. He's correctly spots the 'whys' that have carried the most weight in the formation of these.
Most of scientology addresses the problems of this situation where you are already encapsulated in mental software. Alan went for the jugular, spotting accurate Whos Whys, getting the emotional side of what happened to you before adopting the human modality. The C of S never dealt with the charge of the Big being declining. It wasn't easy to unearth buried betrayals and political faux pas with other spiritual beings before being human. His style of getting to case, inspects your games, as solutions to the unresolved areas. There's a big area of obfuscated upset in the realm of spiritual beings acting against other purely spiritual beings.
I remember I used to read Alan's material and it wouldn't sink in until days later, with an aha. I'd suddenly see the bigger picture from outside my tiny role. This is why the shared post by a Knowledgism student talking about INT OUT, caught my eye.
I never met Alan Walter in the 1960s when he was reportedly some kind of big deal. I knew him in the mid-1970s when he ran a fledgling mission in Sacramento, hopelessly outdone by the aggressive mission holder across town. He presented himself as being one step removed from LRH. He was an effective speaker and motivator, but lazy. He went on an expansion kick and his senior staff were sent to the Midwest to start missions, largely failures. Rumors circulated about his supposed OT abilities after he did his L's at Flag (on the mission's dime). Then in the late 70s he was declared SP (he always said Scientology was not rote) and his staff, perhaps tired of hearing how lucky they were to work under him, sang “Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead.” From humble strip mall digs, he bragged of past legendary success, and that even battles with the IRS could not kill his F/N (his success had been tax-free). He was a pure businessman in that he was not creative -- hence his later "Knowledgism" for which he published a book for recovering attention units just from reading the book(!), and entering successful (color-coded) states of consciousness. It wasn't technical, more like his take on Tony Robbins. And of course I was very lucky to have known him
I've done services at Ron's Org.
I can't say I'm a roaring success but I have made some significant gains, particularly on Excalibur.
Thank you Helena.
I will not discuss the significant gains, but what about the « ethics », hard sell or disconnection aspects? Is it different from the official $cientology?
No hard sell or disconnection to speak of. Ethics is presented as a tool for the client to use hirself, but I've never seen anyone assigned a condition. No penances at all. I suppose someone who is making big problems would be asked to leave, but I don't know of this actually having happened. Staff pay, however, is nothing to write home about.
Thank you Helena, I appreciate your answer.
It's not "CoS"
That's a generality.
I'm viewing from some distance of course but there appear to be two primary Merchants of Chaos doing a bang-up job of turning the whole thing into crap
well a google search of Ron's Org came up with this:
Is that you Terril Park, or part of that organization? I did a reading of the website, clicking on various links, it's pretty much the same rhetoric Hubbard used. I did notice, or couldn't find a definition for OT?
From the website:
"Each step is delivered, starting with the Grades and Dianetics auditing and up through all the Operating Thetan Levels including the Ls Rundowns."
This sounds like come-on dissemination that Hubbard used.
What say you Terril Park?
What you have quoted here is not rhetoric, it's nuts and bolts stuff. "Dianetics, The Original Thesis" was all nuts and bolts stuff. DMSMH was a hot air balloon with the nuts and bolts stuffed vastly padded with rhetoric.
Thank you or coming up with the Dean Wilbur material Gibby; great stuff!!