ESMB and The Freezone - let's have it out!

[Alanzo]

This is a very good point. Also, I think it would be interesting to look at some of the most prolific posters who seem to put at least 2 cents worth of defending or at least making excuses for the "tech" in almost every thread on the board.

Name names.

Let's see it.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Name names.

Let's see it.

You can mention me if you want. I won't mind. But note I neither support nor rail against "the tech" as that is too much of a generality for my taste.

Paul

 

[Mick Wenlock]

You can mention me if you want. I won't mind. But note I neither support nor rail against "the tech" as that is too much of a generality for my taste.

Paul

OK Nok Er Nok

I am mentioning Paul

 

[olska]

[snip]

This doesn't mean you need to be all sweet and agreeable. Hell no. But when you see a person who has just escaped the cult and are in a terrible state, the last thing you should be doing is advertising FZ services. The same goes the other way. If someone has just uncovered and resolved a huge problem in their lives with some processing, I think it's completely inapproriate to respond with "You're just a brainwashed cultie and it's not real and you are a moron".

Bold emphasis mine. Thank you -- you just summed up my entire argument against the promotion and proselytizing by scientologists on this forum. Couldn't be simpler, imo.

 

[Zinjifar]

This is a very good point. Also, I think it would be interesting to look at some of the most prolific posters who seem to put at least 2 cents worth of defending or at least making excuses for the "tech" in almost every thread on the board.

I think anybody who spends any time posting to/reading ESMB will come away with some impression of the position(s) of the various posters. At least, any regular poster. That's valuable information and allows the putting into context what might otherwise be a less than explicit post.

Why, I even have a pretty good handle on *your* positions Ladybird

But, since we're not forcing posters to wear disclaimers listing the known preferences, biases and side-effects, it's about all it's good for.

Zinj

 

[asagai]

You and me and Lionheart.

We're triplets!

One day Alanzo, everybody will think as we do! Arrrrrrgh!

 

[paradox]

.... I wanted to save everyone. I was as annoying as hell. So sometimes when you think a FZer is proselytizing and you want them to stop, maybe you are seeing a little of your old self in that person and you don't like it. I realise this is a generality and I'm not pointing the finger at anyone, it's just some thoughts I've had on the subject....

A concept I have been under the influence of most of my life has been that the world and the people in it needed changing, including the various beliefs I have held about myself over time, from the time that my redundant self-reflection about myself took root, probably around the age of 5-7 or so. When I became susceptible to others' opinions about myself and accepted them as part of my own self-definition. What a confusing period in my life, those early formative years, the transition from just being who I was and accepting of, reveling in the wonder of external reality, to being someone who of a sudden seemed to have this capacity for redundant self-reflection into an inner world ... like, wow! where did this world come from? Kinda crept up on me unawares.

Anyway, not long ago I realized I was "confronting" life, facing it, with and through all these ideas and concepts about it, versus just really seeing and connecting with, accepting, a reality of what-is. Including all the concepts and ideas about it. And part of the recognition was that, indeed, part of this "package" is that this superficial reality of ideas and concepts was merely reflecting back to me, mirroring, my own beliefs about myself. In other words, what I was mistaking for external reality was simply a projection of my own beliefs, and what was catching my interest and intention were all the negative things about myself that I wanted to change about myself or all the positive things I perceived as missing in myself. As if I were trying to create ... and, indeed, could only perceive ... an external reality as nothing more than my own mirror image of concept and belief. Sort of like how American culture is willing to assist other cultures in changing just so long as its in America's own image (corporate and all), or to its own vested interest and concepts about reality. Perhaps a carry over from the judaic concept of viewing an external creator as having created its most sentient creature in its own image. Alan Watts termed it as the "ceramic" view of reality, like an artisan creating (sentient) pottery. Not saying there isn't truth in it, just that it may be an incomplete truth.

Anyway, it was an interesting transition for me when I came to this realization and let go of the desire to change others; to save them, to save the world, to save myself even. And surrendered to an acceptance of what is without needing to change anything. I think that's when I realized what I was "here" for, which was simply to learn until I was "done" with it (not an intellectual decision on "doneness" but more an intuitive knowing that I am finished with this realm and willing to "move" on, to dream a different reality ... when I muse about it conceptually, I come to the conclusion I'm not finished yet or I wouldn't still be "here." Part of this acceptance has been the acceptance of trusting in my true self (not my intellectual self) in that everything is proceeding as it should, everything is at heart as it should be. Including all the negative and positive manifestations of the reality I'm engaged with at the present moment. All is right with the world and the myriad aligned and conflicting viewpoints of it, all the dichotomies. Really, what a truly wondrous and fascinating classroom it is.

Sorry if this has come across as a bit pedantic or boring much ado about nothing. It's a style I've grown accustomed to, I guess.

 

[olska]

[snip]
And that's where I draw the line - Scientologists and those who support the various parts of it are dangerous because they are total amateurs, but they THINK they know something.

Most scientologists know absolutely nothing about therapy, mental illness, psychiatry and psychology beyond what they have read from Hubbard or in Freedumb Magazine. They read 4 articles by HUbbard and suddenly think they know more than any "psych" who ever lived.

This makes them dangerous. In the same way that I would not want to see a child playing with razor blades I do not wish to see Scientologists doing anything in the field of therapy to someone else - they can do whatever they like to themselves.

Bold/red emphasis mine. I agree completely. Here imo the argument against the so-called "professional" practice of scientology is perfectly stated.

 

[Ladybird]

Name names.

Let's see it.

It's not you, Alanzo! You are in a special category all by your sweet self!

I know what you want though...you want the 1000th post in this epic thread as a feather in your cap.

Let the games begin!

 

[Lulu Belle]

Wow.

I haven't been on the internet much, primarily due to a fried ethernet card in my home computer.

I have only been able to read a little bit of this massive thread.

Personally, I don't care if Freezoners post or not. I "cut my teeth" in the ex-Scientology message world on ARS. Anyone and everyone can post what they want there and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it.

After a few years of Scientology psych spam, Scientology gibberish spam, Barbara Schwartz, and a whole lot of other stuff, you learn to tune out or ignore things you find offensive, disagreable or just plain boring.

I do want to say something, though. I don't agree with this business of people whining to Emma or moderators about things they don't like. What are we? Six year olds who have to run to mommy when another kid in the sandbox is mean to them?

Grow up, people. Either deal with it, ignore it, or, as someone here said, "change the channel".

I think Emma deserves a medal. You couldn't pay me enough for this thankless job.

 

[Boldgirl]

I looked up words in a dictionary while studying before I knew about Scientology. Aren't you being a bit extreme here Mick because of some experience you've had?

.

From where I sit at this point in time, I dont think Mick is being extreme. Looking up words while in scn using study tech was all about how wrong the reader is for not getting or agreeing with a concept-thats the underlying mind control. Also looking up words became a compulsion, a little voice that many felt they 'had to do' or I will be in trouble and they'll know when they do a meter check on me, fear or looking sleepy or tired or fidgety--it was all conditioning to feed the fear and the 'must do' that scientology breeds into it's cult members.
Same with ARC. You learn to ignore your own knowingness because you try to fit every situation with another into an ARC box and formula.

 

[asagai]

Sorry if this has come across as a bit pedantic or boring much ado about nothing. It's a style I've grown accustomed to, I guess.

Not at all, it was deeply profound and all is well with ESMB!

 

[Boldgirl]

I've been desperately trying to follow this thing. All i can conclude is that we're all bozos on this bus.

hey speak for yourself. I get lost in these posts all the time, I just chalk it up to not being 'poster savvy enough' , as well as not having nearly the level of scn years that some of these guys do. Plus I am used to missing the punch line in life---I never really get the jokes anyway!

One way I will know I am really 'cool' is when I start getting the jokes on this message board--hey we all have to have something to strive for.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

well whoops... my apologies to you!.

No worries, almost everyone here seems to think the same

No no no, the phrase that springs to mind is "gullible twits" or naifs.

Fair enough.

some people think they have made gains with rastafarianism, does that mean you will be dreadlocking and smoking the ganja?.

I like the Rastas I've met, but no, heavy use of dope's no good for you.

How do you account for the fact that over 80% of the people who try scientology think that it is total rubbish?.

'Cos the Church sucks, and that is where most people get their experience of Scn. If they tried it at a good freezone group (as I did), it wouldn't be 80% (assuming that statistic is accurate).

But to answer your question - because they are gullible twits who have no idea how to think critically. In a nutshell.

In many cases yes, but that's also what (relatively) non-spiritually aware people think of anyone who's "reaching" spiritually. Try giving up your job to go to India and stay at Poonjaji's ashram, for example, and watch your work colleagues tell you you're not "thinking critically".

I notice that everything you refer to revolves around the mysterious "making gains" - so what, exactly do you mean with the phrase "making gains"?

People believe in Scientology for the same reasons they believe in quack "cures". They do not realize that they are going to change - with or without the "cure". People do not stay the same, they adapt, they learn most people improve in their capability to handle their life. Not all, of course, but most.

But wouldn't that apply to almost anything spiritual? Zen? Raja yoga? Rajneesh's dynamic meditation? You're probably right, but a good spiritual discipline or technology hastens the process of change or growth. I think this needs a thread by itself.

You seem to be against all kinds of spiritual technologies and disciplines, not just Scn.

You see CS - let's take our little back and forth - you have dismissed the concept of the "Clear" as outlined by Hubbard. Now Hubbard said that not only had he cleared people but that he had trained others to do it and had seen and noted the results. According to Hubbard this was observed fact it was supposedly as thoroughly researched as any engineering.

But you, apparently, think Hubbard was either nuts or a liar. Wanna pick a runway and set yourself down?

He may well have gone nuts; I had another spiritual teacher who I think lost it at some point, so maybe Ron did too.

So - if the work that started this whole thing is wrong - why would you think that anything else this charlatan laid his pudgy fingers on was any better?

The 50's tech was very good IMO, but it was a research line. It worked with some people and not others, and even with the people it worked on it was incomplete (the grades didn't exist back then. for instance). Other researchers have come along since and produced more reliable technologies based on the same data Ron started out with.

He produced not one shred of proof, Scientologists as a group are only as effective as any other fanatical group of brainwashed devotees, in fact the Moonies and the Hare Krishnas appear to be doing much better than Scientology.

Moonies - no way IMO. The Hari Krishnas have a fantastic restaurant in London but they're right at the top of Cultwatch's list of dangerous cults because of the very hard conditions they subject their devotees to.

Now, I do not want to stop you from enjoying the "gains" you get from whatever it is that you do - Pilotism?? Oggology? OC sufferers get "gains "from washing their hands multiple times for example or high functioning autistics can get "gains" from counting and I do not wish to stop them either at least not until there is some sort of cure.

Sorry, they don't. I have a friend who's OCD. You don't make gains by performing rituals when you're OC (obsessive compulsive), it merely provides a brief release from anxiety. In her case, her gains haven't been from handwashing but from CBT (cognitive behaviour therapy).

I don't want to stop you getting those "gains" , in fact , more power to your elbow but if you start posting on a public forum about them then I assume that you are up for debating them otherwise why talk about them - unless you are trying to suck other people in?

So that the truth can emerge.

I'm saying there's at least some value in the Tech, you and others here are saying there isn't. Others reading the thread can decide for themselves.

As for sucking people in, I'm heavily outnumbered here by people who think I'm wrong so I wouldn't worry too much about that.

And that's where I draw the line - Scientologists and those who support the various parts of it are dangerous because they are total amateurs, but they think they know something.

Most scientologists know absolutely nothing about therapy, mental illness, psychiatry and psychology beyond what they have read from Hubbard or in Freedumb Magazine. They read 4 articles by Hubbard and suddenly think they know more than any "psych" who ever lived.

I know. Freedumb - LOL.

This makes them dangerous. In the same way that I would not want to see a child playing with razor blades I do not wish to see Scientologists doing anything in the field of therapy to someone else - they can do whatever they like to themselves.

But if you just want to sit around in dark rooms "blanketing" others - well hey, be my guest.

No one's being blanketed. We're just having a conversation about Tech, in fact as I've just said I'm being outnumbered here by people who think I'm wrong so if anyone's being "blanketed" it's me.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Looking up words while in scn using study tech was all about how wrong the reader is for not getting or agreeing with a concept-thats the underlying mind control.

Depends. I was a Pro Word-Clearer and Sup and involved with this topic a lot.

The "Method 4" crap of "must find" the prior misunderstood word if one disagrees with a bulletin, I agree, is 100% control.

But if a student is all foggy and can't fix it by himself, and the sup helps him zero in on a word he didn't get (by the STUDENT's call), and the student brightens up on spotting that was THE word even before opening the dictionary, how is that control to the end of agreeing with some concept?

Paul

 

[Boldgirl]

Should I be the only one who has an open mind?

No but I get the impression a lot here at times that people ignore the facts about scn and hubbard to hold onto the promised dream that will never happen and was never designed to be fulfilled to anyone. Keeping an open mind while ignoring facts about what a cult is, what mind control is, what Hubbard really did in life, what the purpose of scn was developed for.....is in my strong opinion ....is a sign of a person still under the mind control of a cult.

 

[Boldgirl]

Yes, but the "tone scale", "Chart of Human Evaluation", and "1.1" did not exist until the drunken, bigamous, wife-beating, child-kidnapper put pen to paper in a drunken haze in Cuba, while avoiding being institutionalised for his psychotic, brutal, perverted behaviour towards his "wife".

So the point I am making is that your quoted LRH terms and ideas about love are unreliable, because the source of them was clearly not released on the subject of love.

I am suggesting a solution to your voiced problem is to drop the concepts that stem from an unreliable, perverted source and then see what you are left with as regards the subject of love. False Data Stripping - if you prefer Scn words for what I am suggesting.

I expect you will find great wisdom in the Bible and the Greeks on the subject, and maybe your would not have a problem on the subject of love if you let go of the ideas on it from a perverted source.

I think there are many non-LRH english words for "love" and it will never be defeated by a wife-beating pervert!

References to help let go of Ron's ideas on love are LRH's "admissions" and Sara Northrup's submission to the divorce court
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3324774/Admissions-of-LRon-Hubbard
http://www.spaink.net/cos/LRH-bio/sara.htm

YES YES YES....well put.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Depends. I was a Pro Word-Clearer and Sup and involved with this topic a lot.

The "Method 4" crap of "must find" the prior misunderstood word if one disagrees with a bulletin, I agree, is 100% control.

But if a student is all foggy and can't fix it by himself, and the sup helps him zero in on a word he didn't get (by the STUDENT's call), and the student brightens up on spotting that was THE word even before opening the dictionary, how is that control to the end of agreeing with some concept?

Paul

I've done the Student Hat and I know a bit about this but I can't compete with Paul here.

Scn's emphasis on word clearing is an example of a sometimes workable datum carried to extremes. IMO it's used to cover up for the fact than modern CofS course sups often don't know the materials they're training the students on, so they have to parrot "What do your materials state?" when the student encounters a problem.

An addition to my list of questions to ask CofS staffers is this; if word clearing is so vital, why don't top students at school and university do it all the time?

 

[Boldgirl]

If you'd prefer a different example from LRH, take a look at M. Scott Peck. He was far from perfect as a man too, he drank, smoked and committed adultery. Yet he wrote works of great wisdom, among which is one called "People of the Lie" about people who correspond pretty closely to what LRH defined and described as SPs. (I felt like throttling that pair of rich WASP parents by the end of it).

LRH and M. Scott Peck; two imperfect men, who in different ways nevertheless recognised and documented an important and unsavoury truth about the world we live in, viz., there really are people out there trying to stop you becoming who you really want to be.

Hmm..did scott peck start a cult, swindle millions of dollars from people, break up thousands of families, lock children in lockers for a week, ?

There is a vast difference between LR Hubbard and the vast majority of people I have ever read about. Hubbard is in a class of sociopaths that hopefully soon will just be something our kids read about in history books.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Hmm..did scott peck start a cult, swindle millions of dollars from people, break up thousands of families, lock children in lockers for a week, ?

No he didn't, but by his own admission he was an evangelist for a religion which has done all those things except maybe locking up children. The Christian Church's crimes far outweigh Scientology's (and I love the wisdom I find in the Bible).

His defence, which I find persuasive, is that his form of Christianity was not the "fundamentalist" kind but the "mystical" kind.