The great David & Marty transfer of Scientology Power (show)?

[OperatingSP]

The head cam routine was comedy gold but I doubt that was the intention.

It was comedy gold, but it was also much more than that.

The head cam routine was the foot bullet that will live forever. Seriously. That simple picture is one of the worst mistakes I've seen DM and the corporate Church of Scientology ever make. A picture is worth a thousands words, and all that.

Think of it. Every time a Scientologist, or at least a corporate Church of Scientology Scientologist, asserts the overwhelming, mind-blowing, positive and ethical spiritual value of the OT levels, and particularly OT8, a critic will refer to John Allender and post pictures like:





Yes, says the critic, this is a shining example of the benefits of OT. This is what completing the currently ultimate OT level gets you -- to forever look like an asshat on the internet. Wow, where can I sign up?

.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Actually it is. However, the behavior you describe taken to an extreme is also incitement to riot/sedition/public disorder/rebellion. The right of free speech is not legally recognized as absolute.

Yes, I'm aware of this.

So why don't you answer the two questions I asked earlier of Claire:

So you're OK than with others teaching ANY ideology they wish?

Nazism is an ideology. Do people have the right to recruit new members and indoctrinate them with that ideology?

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Posted by OperatingSP

It was comedy gold, but it was also much more than that.

The head cam routine was the foot bullet that will live forever. Seriously. That simple picture is one of the worst mistakes I've seen DM and the corporate Church of Scientology ever make. A picture is worth a thousands words, and all that.

Think of it. Every time a Scientologist, or at least a corporate Church of Scientology Scientologist, asserts the overwhelming, mind-blowing, positive and ethical spiritual value of the OT levels, and particularly OT8, a critic will refer to John Allender and post pictures like:

Attachment 5317

Attachment 5318

Yes, says the critic, this is a shining example of the benefits of OT. This is what completing the currently ultimate OT level gets you -- to forever look like an asshat on the internet. Wow, where can I sign up?

Lol, very true, but despite the tears of laughter that stream down my face just at the thought of those pics (head cams nailed to the heads of such huuuuuuge thetans will do that) I do feel a tiny tinge of sadness for them ... because they made such utter dicks of themselves in front of the world and his dog and we will never let them forget it until they stop grovelling to COB and cease lying about the non existent 'state of oatee' ... that (for me) would bring about an immediate cease fire, cos I'm ever so nice like that.

​

Posted by Claire Swazey

snipped

So back to my original point.

Yawn, have we ever been 'allowed' to get away from your original point/purpose here Claire?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... So why don't you answer the two questions I asked earlier of Claire:

Effectively I have already. Admittedly there is some ambiguity in your choice of the word "okay".

I would much prefer it were humans intelligent, insightful, & wise. They are not. People routinely profess the most idiotic & suppressive practices; e.g. fascism, christianity, laissez faire capitalism, etc.. I'd rather they didn't promote such blatant corrupt idiocies, but they do. I see no point in being a party myself in the outlawing, restriction, or active prevention of such practice.


The deliberate suppression of the spread of ideas is far more dangerous a perspective than the ideas which may be suppressed due to the ease with which people extend the power once conceded.

Ergo, for a certain value of "okay", I am "okay" with it.

That's not to say I respect those individuals who choose such paths for themselves and seek to impose them on others. However, feel free to recruit fresh nascent nazis if that is what floats your boat. It's only when you act to supplant the rights of others that you will have exceeded your own inherent right to hold your own beliefs.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Claire Swazey]

I don't have any problem with that as I said, and I don't have any problem with people auditing others inside or outside the CoS.....again, as long as it isn't being done fraudulently, which has been standard operating procedure for decades now.

But there have been some horrific things done by the CoS and scientologists in the name of the "greatest good", and I know very well that not all scientologists who have exited the CoS have taken the fanaticism with them, but some have imo, and it is not beyond the realm of possibility for a new cult to emerge outside of the CoS in the years to come who seek to destroy others in the name of scientology.

Right. But we were talking about choices of ex members to go Indie, stay Indie or go Indie for a while then stop, or to ditch the whole thing. Different subject.

 

[Type4_PTS]

I fixed this first quote for you Mark. You're welcome!

I would much prefer it were humans intelligent, insightful, & wise. And other than myself they are not.

It's only when you act to supplant the rights of others that you will have exceeded your own inherent right to hold your own beliefs.

In my book there is no person, organization, or state that has the "right" to call for the extermination of other human beings. Even if those in question believe it to be the "greatest good".

And the U.S. Supreme Court or any other court doesn't have the ability to grant that "right" to others.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Right. But we were talking about choices of ex members to go Indie, stay Indie or go Indie for a while then stop, or to ditch the whole thing. Different subject.

If you go back and reread the exchange between us you'll see that what we were talking about was quite a bit broader than how you just characterized it.

Anyways, my point is that there are elements of scientology which no one has the "right" to practice. It doesn't matter whether they're within the CoS, whether they're a freezoner, Indie, or any other flavor scientologist. No one has the "right" to destroy another human being, even if Hubbard gives permission to do so.

 

[Claire Swazey]

If you go back and reread the exchange between us you'll see that what we were talking about was quite a bit broader than how you just characterized it.

Anyways, my point is that there are elements of scientology which no one has the "right" to practice. It doesn't matter whether they're within the CoS, whether they're a freezoner, Indie, or any other flavor scientologist. No one has the "right" to destroy another human being, even if Hubbard gives permission to do so.

I think there are such things as immoral beliefs. And from that standpoint, I would say that one may not be correct in having such. But "right"? Hmm...

This is why we have freedom of speech and of religious belief.

There are religions that teach jihad. That teach white supremacy. That teach that women aren't equal. That teach that women have to purify themselves after their periods. That teach that unbelievers are going to hell. I do not share those beliefs. I do not like those beliefs. But at the end of the day, unless and until someone actually kidnaps a women, bombs or murders an unbeliever, it's just freedom of belief.

I will reiterate my original point and that is namely, that I see no difference in opting to

• become an Indie
• Stop being one
• never be one

It's about choice. Choice does not mean "share Claire's beliefs about how evil and stupid it is to make women wear veils or to tell little kids their folks are going to hell because they weren't saved."

 

[phenomanon]

Thanks for the additional info.

My response was to both you and TGI, which I should have noted.

Yes, the Information age has made a difference, and one wonders why, in the age of YouTube, Miscavige chose >>>

to be the face of Scientology.


Maybe he's losing his mind.

See those T-shirts? In 1984 I had a few dozen T-shirts printed up with that design, except that the 'ban circle' had a drawing of a robot with a tiny SO symbol on it's sleeve, and the words read " Cult Buster".
COS has stolen my idea, and my design.
Another thing that's not original with them.
Yawn.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

DELETE - DOUBLE POST

DOUBLE POST - DELETE

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Harrhrumphf!!! - The Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology spreads hate, unrelentingly and in the most devious and underhanded manner I can think of in calm weather! - Just recall the 'campaign' against the evil psychs. The evil shit Hubturd said about reporters, scientists and I dare say everybody but 'loyal' scientologists. And the evil crap about 'disloyal' scientologists.. [Why scientologists can listen to all that and stay scientologists are a mystery to me..]

Day'um! - I nearly forgot about the 'Condition Formulas'! - That shit belongs in the list of evil hatemongering done by L.Ron Hubbard and perpetuated dutifully by his deluded followers.. The whole alleged 'Ethics System' of Scientology is hate mongering.. Read it again if you don't believe me!

 

[HoraciotheOT8]

WordClown: -noun. 1. A person who unwittingly entertains others thru what they (alone) believe to be cleverly deceptive syntax. They often mistakenly assume themselves to be quite sophisticated, scholarly or brilliant--not suspecting that others are laughing at their buffoonery. 2. A faux-intellectual or laughably inept "expert" who inadvertently provides entertainment by using words as if they were loudly beeped out of a clown's squeeze-horn. 3. One who pathetically attempts to defend the indefensible by distracting everyone with a word-juggling act worthy of a clown.
WordClownism is a disease that is triggered by fact-finding or whistleblowing, at which time the WordClown immediately begins spinning, twisting or otherwise torturing the truth in a frantic effort to keep it hidden. Their desperation is so great that they begin spewing non-sensical words, framed with much gravitas--which only heightens the hilarity.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wordclown

Posting an unauthorized (though brief) biography of me, without my permission, is not a very attractive way to behave on a public forum. And its hurtful.

Horacio

 

[Free Being Me]

WordClown: -noun. 1. A person who unwittingly entertains others thru what they (alone) believe to be cleverly deceptive syntax. They often mistakenly assume themselves to be quite sophisticated, scholarly or brilliant--not suspecting that others are laughing at their buffoonery. 2. A faux-intellectual or laughably inept "expert" who inadvertently provides entertainment by using words as if they were loudly beeped out of a clown's squeeze-horn. 3. One who pathetically attempts to defend the indefensible by distracting everyone with a word-juggling act worthy of a clown.
WordClownism is a disease that is triggered by fact-finding or whistleblowing, at which time the WordClown immediately begins spinning, twisting or otherwise torturing the truth in a frantic effort to keep it hidden. Their desperation is so great that they begin spewing non-sensical words, framed with much gravitas--which only heightens the hilarity.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wordclown

Posting an unauthorized (though brief) biography of me, without my permission, is not a very attractive way to behave on a public forum. And its hurtful.

Horacio

Your name wasn't mentioned in my post, how ever feel free to self apply wordclown as your wont.

 

[Type4_PTS]

If you go back and reread the exchange between us you'll see that what we were talking about was quite a bit broader than how you just characterized it.

Anyways, my point is that there are elements of scientology which no one has the "right" to practice. It doesn't matter whether they're within the CoS, whether they're a freezoner, Indie, or any other flavor scientologist. No one has the "right" to destroy another human being, even if Hubbard gives permission to do so.

I think there are such things as immoral beliefs. And from that standpoint, I would say that one may not be correct in having such. But "right"? Hmm...

This is why we have freedom of speech and of religious belief.

I gave an example of "behavior", that of destroying another human being, something that Hubbard gave Scientologists permission to do, and you are switching the conversation now over to belief.

Destroying another human being doesn't fall under either "freedom of speech" nor is it protected by religious belief.

There are religions that teach jihad. That teach white supremacy. That teach that women aren't equal. That teach that women have to purify themselves after their periods. That teach that unbelievers are going to hell. I do not share those beliefs. I do not like those beliefs. But at the end of the day, unless and until someone actually kidnaps a women, bombs or murders an unbeliever, it's just freedom of belief.

I'm confident that compelling evidence can be produced of Scientology's violent track record towards it's imagined enemies. This goes beyond simply "belief".

I will reiterate my original point and that is namely, that I see no difference in opting to

• become an Indie
• Stop being one
• never be one

It's about choice. Choice does not mean "share Claire's beliefs about how evil and stupid it is to make women wear veils or to tell little kids their folks are going to hell because they weren't saved."

Does choice include breaking into the office of a psychologist or attorney of your imagined enemy because it is the greatest good? Does it include framing an imagined enemy to make it look like she made bomb threats when she did not?

 

[HoraciotheOT8]

Does choice include breaking into the office of a psychologist or attorney of your imagined enemy because it is the greatest good? Does it include framing an imagined enemy to make it look like she made bomb threats when she did not?

If I may jump in here....Choice in this world includes everything done on purpose, whether or not that purpose is/was good or evil. And whether or not that 'choice' was consciously or unconsciously created, to boot.

Your outrage against 'evilness' is undoubtedly justified Type4. But 'goodness' itself demands it. For how pray tell would you even know what good is, in the absence of knowing what evil is? Nay, you wouldn't, and indeed you couldn't. All philosophical niceties set aside.

Universal declarations (and constitutional creeds) set aside, human beings are a motley group hell bent on fulfilling their (hidden) spiritual aims. Be they good or evil, or both, or neither. For the simple reason duality demands it. And the world we live in is dualistic by nature. Up down, left right, good evil, right wrong, male female, pro con, and on and on and on and on....ad infinitum (some say).

The upshot is Scientology accommodates both love & hate, peace & war, goodness & evil simultaneously. On the evil side you are correct, justification is not possible. On the other hand, well, see the inevitable (and useful) relationship above.

Horacio

 

[Claire Swazey]

I gave an example of "behavior", that of destroying another human being, something that Hubbard gave Scientologists permission to do, and you are switching the conversation now over to belief.

Destroying another human being doesn't fall under either "freedom of speech" nor is it protected by religious belief.




I'm confident that compelling evidence can be produced of Scientology's violent track record towards it's imagined enemies. This goes beyond simply "belief".

CofS, sure. But as I explained, that's not what I was talking about.

Does choice include breaking into the office of a psychologist or attorney of
your imagined enemy because it is the greatest good? Does it include framing
an imagined enemy to make it look like she made bomb threats when she did not?

Huh?

 

[Type4_PTS]

CofS, sure. But as I explained, that's not what I was talking about.

And it's not what I'm talking about either.

What I said was this:

Anyways, my point is that there are elements of scientology which no one has the "right" to practice. It doesn't matter whether they're within the CoS, whether they're a freezoner, Indie, or any other flavor scientologist. No one has the "right" to destroy another human being, even if Hubbard gives permission to do so.

 

[Gottabrain]

And it's not what I'm talking about either.

What I said was this:

there are elements of scientology which no one has the "right" to practice. It doesn't matter whether they're within the CoS, whether they're a freezoner, Indie, or any other flavor scientologist. No one has the "right" to destroy another human being, even if Hubbard gives permission to do so.

Besides scamming, conning, imprisonment, child and elder abuse and neglect, as well as the usual long list of Scn crimes, I believe that must also include using humans as guinea pigs for mental experiments without their knowledge, instead falsely claiming such methods were scientific and fully researched.

The damage MUST stop.

 

[Freeminds]

You pays your money, you takes your choice.