What's new

Where the Scn critical movement falls short

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I will be the first to admit that I am not a nice person. No, seriously. I don't fight fair and I don't mince words. But that's really a family thing more than anything else, for me. In my family - you just yell. You go for it and that's that. There is also something to be said for the "Oxford Style" (help me here Brits), which I'll admit is a whole lot wittier than some of my shtick but ad hominem tied into the subject isn't exactly off bounds.

I think the thing I've found is that people get really snarky and really serious way too fast. I would submit to you any example of those willing to engage my rants; if you're not caught up in the deeper meaning it can be funny.

Which sort of gives a backhanded slap to those around here who want to complain I'm into too much "significance", when all the time that's actually their problem.

EDIT: I would hasten to add on Edit the remembrance of a show done on PBS by Wlm F. Buckley called Crossfire. There was a case where teasing ad hominem was also part of the deal, and even diametrically opposed ideologues still laughed about it all in the end.

Well, I'm not trying to suck up or be insincere or anything...I really do mean this. I think you're pretty courteous. Frank and open about how you feel- yes. And your opinions are definitely your own. But, FWIW, I've always thought you were pretty nice to talk to.

It would be sooo boring if we all thought the same things about this topic (Scn) or anything else.
 
When you are talking about something that is supposed to restore sanity, I think that the sanity of the person developing the solution it is VERY relevant.

Depends.

If the discussion is "does scientology restore sanity", then I would agree that the ol' "by their fruit ye shall know them argument" is applicable. LRH = fruit (at least sometimes), so that is a point against.

However, many, such as myself, concede that marketing scientology for reasons of health improvement is wholly invalid.

To such, the "pro-scientology" position is based strictly on it's usefulness as a "spiritual practice & technology".

With the result being there is a condition of "no argument" concerning the question of scientology as a "cure" for mental health problems.

Belaboring the point of Hubbard's mental state is then seen to be both irrelevant to the argument and thereby a distractive tactic.


Mark A. Baker
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Oh, man! I'd LOVE to hear what Pat Broeker could tell us!!

Is he here? Compliments of www.zabasearch.com, which tends to be horrifically comprehensive if you ever look up someone you know. :)

PATRICK BROEKER
2112 7TH AVE Recorded: 03/12/2002
COUNCIL BLUFFS, IA 51501 (712) 323-9168

PATRICK BROEKER
5921 KENNEDY AVE SE Recorded: Unknown
AUBURN, WA 98092

PAT C BROEKER Born 1941
1712 CRESCENT DR Recorded: 03/01/2002
PEKIN, IL 61554 (309) 347-2125

PATRICK D BROEKER Born Mar 1948
3010 REED AVE Recorded: 08/12/2002
CHEYENNE, WY 82001 (307) 634-0915

PATRICK H BROEKER Born Jun 1957
8203 31ST AVE Recorded: 03/12/2002
GAINESVILLE, FL 32606 (352) 380-0595

PATRICK H BROEKER Born Jun 1957
1830 SHERATON LAKES CIR Recorded: Unknown
MIDDLEBURG, FL 32068 (904) 406-0210

Paul
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
sanity and opinions

For my own sanity I am gravitating toward the following conclusions.

(1) It does not help me to think negatively about anyone or anything at all. It actually harms me.

(2) Having an opinion is like having a prejudice. To the degree a person is holding an opinion, he or she is operating from the past.

(3) Thinking negatively or positively about something is simply holding an opinion.

(4) It is much better to assess newly in now. That is quite difficult to do.

By the way, I am very much enjoying reading the book "Eat, Pray, and Love," by Elizabeth Gilbert.

.
 
Last edited:

Vinaire

Sponsor
I just corrected a typo in my last post. I meant,

(2) Having an opinion is like having a prejudice. To the degree a person is holding an opinion, he or she is operating from the past.
 

Veda

Sponsor
There seem to be two threads in one.

Here are some of the Roadkill related ones (excluding a few due to posting limitation):

Welcome Roadkill.

IMO, since Scientology wraps itself in truths (amongst other things), and uses good people, it can't be "pure evil."

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=37634&postcount=2

I guess the main thing I've noticed is that no Scientologist I've seen has ever demonstrated actual OT abilities, while at the same time, numerous OT VIIs and VIIIs have apparently gone insane or become sick or died young or suicided. So the conclusion can be that this is the intended result, whether it was intended by LRH or by the "usurpers" of the church is arguable. Is anyone familiar with the theory that the church changed track in the mid or late 70s and that the early OT's were actually OT (who then left the church) and that the tech was later changed to ensure no one else ever made it after that?

Scientology was fashioned into a mental-healing-coated deceptive and abusive personality cult in the 1960s by its founder.

Perhaps you should start by reading Ron Hubbard's 'Mission statement' of 1938, and then his 'Affirmations'.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=61047&postcount=19

But then again, it might be fun to watch some chit chat about how the Marcabians took over...

Except it must have happened in the 1960s, not the "late 1970s."

Or was that 1938, or 1946...

By the way, Ingo Swann was a natural psychic, who, after leaving Scientology, described its upper levels as disappointing.

Scientology, according to its "First Real Clear," John McMaster, was designed not to make "OTs" but to make "round ball bearings."

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=56246&postcount=798

In 1967 in Las Palmas, several guys were turning on exceptional abilities. BUT, this was NOTHING to do with Scn or OT levels. It was to do with a very high action level, very high ARC, very uncluttered in our dealings with each other.

The OT levels factually fail to deliver what they promise. They are incapable of doing so and do not address the neccessary elements of a person's make-up to achieve anything.

They offer a dream, a hope, a desired state, an ideal scene, that is all.

Hubbard was himself incapable of exhibiting anything like the abilities the guys on the Sea Project could do. This sent him nuts and he could not stand it, so he closed it all down.

DS

Scientology was fashioned into a mental-healing-coated deceptive and abusive personality cult in the 1960s by its founder.
...
By the way, Ingo Swann was a natural psychic, who, after leaving Scientology, described its upper levels as disappointing.
--------

I had not heard that before about Ingo Swann (natural psychic) but that makes sense. I've been fascinated by him for some years - I recently had occasion to read the first half of one of his books "Penetration" owned by a friend of a friend, and then later found out it is on the list of super rare high-priced books. My interest in him was that it appeared from reports that he was in fact OT, whether natural or not, and had documented "proof" of such ability in the Remote Viewing projects. I would love to talk to him.

Would also love to hear from Pat Broeker, if he is still around. There's a guy who knows much and has shared nothing.

BTW, I would also describe the OT levels as disappointing, based on personal experience and also observing lots of others. I think the people who "do well" with it tend to be power-hungry or ego-driven. In the world of "anything goes" (which is what OT levels deal with, i.e., the significance belonging to the mocked-up significance) it seems to be all about ego-stroking.
 
Last edited:

roadracer

Patron
I hope I am not off topic here but..

those that wish to SAVE people from the church are many, but I am not one. I am in this fight to save my tax dollars and to save those who do not have a voice. I could care less about those who are fully indoctrinated and are unwilling to listen to both sides. They ARE the problem. The criminality of this cult is not that of one man, but that of MANY in the cult.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I hope I am not off topic here but..

those that wish to SAVE people from the church are many, but I am not one. I am in this fight to save my tax dollars and to save those who do not have a voice. I could care less about those who are fully indoctrinated and are unwilling to listen to both sides. They ARE the problem. The criminality of this cult is not that of one man, but that of MANY in the cult.

There's some truth to what you say, but, I'd say your emphasis is off, and that you miss something important here. There are as many reasons to oppose Scientology as there are people to oppose it, but, people wanting to 'save' Scientologists as a primary purpose is a relatively small minority, mostly because it is, or has been, so pointless.

People aren't 'saved' from Scientology; they save themselves. People don't leave Scientology because they're 'rescued' or because they're 'talked out of it'. They leave because Scientology failed them. It promises so much, then breaks every promise. It's just what Scientology does, and, eventually, almost all Scientologists run up against that, no matter how brainwashed they may be.

Once *that* happens, they leave, or, they hit a point where the 'Church' kicks them out. Once Scientology fails them; breaks one too many promises; commits one too many atrocities against them or their family, they *do* begin to see the other and more general 'outpoints' that they've been trained to blind themselves to.

So, not being in this to 'save' Scientologists is a rational point of view. An outsider is not in a position to 'get people out', because, while most Scientology 'Tech' doesn't work, the Scientology Mind Fuck *does*.

Admittedly, on *this* particular discussion board, you will find people who are trying to save Scientologists, more than elsewhere. It's because most of the people here are *ex* Scientologists (I'm not; some others are not) and, the people they want to save are their friends, their families, their compadres over sometimes *decades* of shared experience.

Scientology rips apart families; it destroys friendships; it *denies* any personal relationships, except for Scientology itself.

Could Scientology even operate without the Scientologists? Well, yes and no, but mostly no. Most Scientologists are the hostages in Scientology's terrorism. Just people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and got tricked in. Or, they were *born* into Scientology, and, there's not a lot of choice there.

They're hostages to their own family ties, and, 'Disconnection' is the whip the 'Church' uses to silence opposition within the 'Church', and, it's the whip they use to silence people close to people still 'in' the 'Church'.

But, to make a blanket judgment of complicity of 'all' Scientologists; to fail in compassion in understanding the gun to their heads; to call the Scientologists themsleves 'criminal' for having that gun held to their heads, is like blaming the hostage in a terror crime.

So, yes, don't 'save' Scientologists; you can't. Not directly. You can't get a Scientologist out of Scientology; you can just be there to help once they get themselves out.

And, you can work to eliminate the hotage taking terrorist. It's not about 'getting the Scientologists out'; it's about shutting down the Cult. Whether the Scientologists want that (or think they want that) or not.

Zinj
 

roadracer

Patron
Thanks so much for your reply Zin. I enjoy your perspective.

As you have probably seen, the Anonymous movement has brought a lot of people onto this board who were not traditionally in the fight. I got involved based on the experience of my sister and the inspiration given to me by the youth involved in Anonymous. I figured the kids today (I am between 35-40) were disaffected, out of touch individuals.

Then I saw the efforts being made by the young people, whether legal (protest) or not (denial of service). This, combined with Tom Cruise saying "It's like, man, you're either in or you're out. That spectatorism, I've no time for it. That is something we have no time for now" got me involved.

Naturally, this all lead to enturb, ocmb, the protests, and now this board. The view from here is quite different than those other boards.

I have to say that it is very difficult to look at the indoctrinated and not see culpability and guilt. Branch Davidian, Peoples Temple, Heaven Gate; did the members have some guilt in the crimes of their cults?

We all have to fight our prejudices and pre-conceived notions of others. If you dont, you are not human. It is easy for me to paint freezoners and kooks, or active CofS members as criminal enablers. I appreciate your post because it reminds me of how unjust that line of thinking is and always will be.
 

sandygirl

Silver Meritorious Patron
Great Quote Zinj!!!:happydance:

I just wanted to clarify one point:
Quote:
Once *that* happens, they leave, or, they hit a point where the 'Church' kicks them out. Once Scientology fails them; breaks one too many promises; commits one too many atrocities against them or their family, they *do* begin to see the other and more general 'outpoints' that they've been trained to blind themselves to.

Unless you are a "celeb". Then promises are kept, you are treated well and respectfully, you can still persue your career, spend time with your family,
and every other right that is denied to your basic normal guy. Oh yeah...and you get to walk around with a smug, self-rightous attitude because you are saving the planet!!
 
Top