1977 scientologist, in the independent field since 2005.

Veda

Well-known member
I already answered that. You seem to be another member of a society that is ruled by pedophile and child sacrificing commie politicians, currently engaging in reducing the population of what they consider "usles eaters".
Have you read what Hubbard, in Science of Survival, instructed should be done with those below 2.0 on his Chart of Human Evaluation, if they refuse Scientology processing?

"Dispose of quietly and without sorrow."

There's a lecture from 1952 where Hubbard ridicules those who are outraged by pedophilia.

Hubbard even redefined "child" to mean someone who cannot hold a post, meaning that a 10 year old that can hold a post (be on staff) is no longer a child.

As for the Commies, Hubbard modeled the Scientology operation after what he presented to his unsuspecting followers as a communist textbook...
 

Zertel

Well-known member
The problem with Jack Horner is that he would have split the Bridge with his own copyrights. One example is the "self claimed Hubbard" Andreas Buttler. He developed "Sperianism". Latter said his tech was flubed and avandoned it all. Now he is suing people commenting on him. If Buttler invalidated all his tech. Just imagine the coplications if every collaborator of Hubbard claimed ownership of their share? How many collaborators would be sueing scientologists over the use of their contributions and processes to The Bridge?

That is why he must remain Source.

Yes. I remember that gigant photo in the golden frame at my Class IV Org.

So, we can agree that the R6 bank "iconology" was a success.

Sure, Hubbard didn't gave a real OT 8 level, but that doesn't mean the Bridge is not there. Bill Robertson (allegedly on telepathic comm with Hubbard) developed OT 8 (Excalubur) and the next levels in his Ron's Org.

Hubbard himself explains how Scientology has many contributions dating back to millenia. But Scientology has remained a single subject thanks to Hubbard being the Source of it.
To me the simplest answer to Hubbard never giving credit to anyone except in generalized terms is copyright protection. As long as his name was on the bottom of everything he could threaten to sue anyone using his material. Who knows how many squirrel groups he ran out of business by a simple legal threat. I'm a sense I don't blame him. The law rightfully protects intellectual property and he put thirty or forty years into putting his thing together. Rinder says scn hasn't bothered suing anyone for copyright infringement for years so I guess anyone can use whatever they want.

You are a good sport, Cuitlahuac. You are taking the ribbing and occasional hostility in stride and gave me a few laughs with your comebacks.
 

Xenu Xenu Xenu

Well-known member
Of course you do. You're missing the point.

When a vulnerable person is stridently told that Scientology is all bad, all B.S., and then encounters Scientology and has a good experience, that can drastically increase the sucking power of Scientology - the power, that is, to suck someone IN and hold on to them.

That good experience might be of just one Scientologist, but it can leave a big impression.

Scientology, which is rotten at the core, often disguises itself. It has many layers and compartments and front groups. It uses goodness and uses good people.

That this is difficult to convey is advantagous to Scientology which, most definitely, does not want to be accurately and fully described.

You may very well be right. You may be wrong. I really don't know. I can see this is going to be one of those endless debates on an already overdone topic. Truce. I give, okay?

But what started all this was this quote:

"All" is a problematic word that feels good to say but can backfire.
Oh, I see you have edited it. I believe you asked, "All a sham?", as well as a few other things in the original posting.

More like this:

Veda said:
"It was all a sham."

Was it? Weren't at least some parts not a sham. Wasn't that what hooked many people?




What brought on that response in the first place was my post:

I wonder what an Indie group would do should one of their own go to the local media and claim it was all a sham, a waste of money, and a waste of time?

How they would react would tell you an awful lot about the much vaunted "tech".
Let's ignore my "all a sham" choice of words and get to the real point of my original post which started all of this.

The point being -- How would an Indie who I presume makes some sort of a living doing Indie stuff react to a critic, an Indie apostate going to the local media?

Would they act exactly like Hubbard, the Guardian's Office, and the OSA been doing for years, namely lie, attack, and destroy the critic?

Or would they just let it slide?

I don't think anyone has ever asked that question before and I thought it was a good question. The fact that no one has said anything about it shows that maybe it wasn't? :)

Oh well.
 

Bill

Well-known member
This thread is an interesting insight into "free Scientology". You take Hubbard's paranoia and massive conspiracy attitude, combine it with a Scientologist's intrinsic gullibility and add many other voices adding to Hubbard's vague claims and this is what you get. Wow.
 

Xenu Xenu Xenu

Well-known member
This thread is an interesting insight into "free Scientology". You take Hubbard's paranoia and massive conspiracy attitude, combine it with a Scientologist's intrinsic gullibility and add many other voices adding to Hubbard's vague claims and this is what you get. Wow.
And to think it is in the New Member Introduction. Whatever. Let it rip fellow ex-clams! :tvhappy:
 

Zertel

Well-known member
Free Scientology is a denomination used since the 60's by independent scientologists in Saint Hill UK.

Any scientologist has the duty to wear his Ethics hat. The policy letter "Administration Outside Scientology" instructs you to use scientology ethics, tech and admin in the society. Scientology handles life. Didn't you know?
"Scientology handles life. Didn't you know?"

I'm in a minority of people believing there can be such a thing as a free thinking non KSW Independent Scientologist. If you feel Scientology handles your life that's fine with me.

Whenever I met someone when I was a scientologist it was always in the back of my mind that eventually he or she should become a scientologist. Years after I left scientology an acquaintance got saved and told me "You can't get to Heaven unless you go through Jesus." Same difference.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
You may very well be right. You may be wrong. I really don't know. I can see this is going to be one of those endless debates on an already overdone topic. Truce. I give, okay?

But what started all this was this quote:



Oh, I see you have edited it. I believe you asked, "All a sham?", as well as a few other things in the original posting.

More like this:

Veda said:
"It was all a sham."

Was it? Weren't at least some parts not a sham. Wasn't that what hooked many people?




What brought on that response in the first place was my post:



Let's ignore my "all a sham" choice of words and get to the real point of my original post which started all of this.

The point being -- How would an Indie who I presume makes some sort of a living doing Indie stuff react to a critic, an Indie apostate going to the local media?

Would they act exactly like Hubbard, the Guardian's Office, and the OSA been doing for years, namely lie, attack, and destroy the critic?

Or would they just let it slide?

I don't think anyone has ever asked that question before and I thought it was a good question. The fact that no one has said anything about it shows that maybe it wasn't? :)

Oh well.
The post was edited because it was unclear.

The word "all" is the problem with the "it was all a sham" assertion.

If "it" is the overall operation of Scientology then, yes, it was/is a sham (false).

If "it" is disassembled into small parts, and each small part examined, then there are parts that are not false.

It's these non false parts that can sometimes be convincing to a person.

None of these non false parts, however, are something that would motivate a person to hand over his mind for laundering at the local Scientology processing plant. That requires hype and deception.

So it's a mixed bag.
 

Xenu Xenu Xenu

Well-known member
The post was edited because it was unclear.

The word "all" is the problem with the "it was all a sham" assertion.

If "it" is the overall operation of Scientology then, yes, it was/is a sham (false).

If "it" is disassembled into small parts, and each small part examined, then there are parts that are not false.

It's these non false parts that can sometimes be convincing to a person.

None of these non false parts, however, are something that would motivate a person to hand over his mind for laundering at the local Scientology processing plant. That requires hype and deception.

So it's a mixed bag.
I agree. I pretty much thought that was what you meant looking at your later posts.

However that was not the point of my post in the first place. But now that you have explained yourself, I don't see much use in you repeating yourself. I think everyone here gets it.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
This thread is an interesting insight into "free Scientology". You take Hubbard's paranoia and massive conspiracy attitude, combine it with a Scientologist's intrinsic gullibility and add many other voices adding to Hubbard's vague claims and this is what you get. Wow.
Apologies for not having read this thread very carefully, but is there a difference between an INDIE SCIENTOLOGIST and a "FREE SCIENTOLOGIST"?

Some years ago I had a slight understanding that there were more than one (1) denomination of the Scientology religion. From what I recall. . .

COS Scientologist: The original religion, standard KSW tech, fanatically follows all "scripture" written by L. Ron Hubbard---including but not limited to POLICIES, BULLETINS, TAPES, BOOKS, ETHICS TECH, ADMIN TECH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVES & ADVICES. The COS Scientologist also agrees and supports all activities of the secretive thug activities of OSA, RTC, CMO, SO and other hidden-from-view fair game attacks on anyone who criticizes or interferes in any way with Scientology's fraud, criminal money rackets and/or "black ops" terrorism.

Indie Scientologist: A Scientologist who wants to be like Hubbard or Miscavige and make their own policies/tech about what is "standard tech" and what is okay (or not okay) to do.

Ron's Org Scientologist: A Scientologist who no longer gets F/Ns on the crazy space-opera lunacy of the COS or Indie Bridge---and is requiring a far more potent drug dose to get that old delusionally euphoric OT feeling again. So, they become devotees of a Scientology leader (Captain Bill Robertson) who was even crazier, more paranoid and more obviously insane than Hubbard/Miscavige.

Where does Free Scientology fit into all this "spiritual technology"?

.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
Free Scientology is a denomination used since the 60's by independent scientologists in Saint Hill UK.

-snip-
Perhaps C. could explain how independent scientologists ("independent" as in practicing Scientology without authorization, and in defiance, of the Scientology organization) could be located at Saint Hill Manor in the 1960s.

I've never head if this.
 

Veda

Well-known member
Speaking of conspiracy, anyone know what happened to Kalle?

He came and furiously posted a bunch and insulted those who
would listen, then left. He's been MIA for over a month.

Any theories? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Just looked up Kalle and read the post where he states that Hubbard was murdered in New York in 1972 - and replaced with a doppelganger.


1973 photo, from Queens, New York,
of the doppelganger.


After 1972, according to this line of thinking, the subject of Scientology was undermined.

As the Independent Scientology Ethics Officer, does C. have a cut off date after which Hubbard writings are suspect?

As I recall, for Bill Robertson, founder of Ron's Orgs, the cut off date was 1980, when the Hubbard thetan left the Hubbard body, to save all Mankind, after being threatened by the Markabians that they were going to blow up the planet if he didn't leave. Having no alternative, Hubbard left, and his body continued to be operated by a sub thetan of some kind.​

If Ethics, Tech, and Admin are so important, then, surely, purity of Source materials must be ensured, right?
 

Cuitlahuac Rivas

Active member
Perhaps C. could explain how independent scientologists ("independent" as in practicing Scientology without authorization, and in defiance, of the Scientology organization) could be located at Saint Hill Manor in the 1960s.

I've never head if this.
I make myself the same question. But they had a periodical publication called IVy, Internationsl Viewpoints.
 

Cuitlahuac Rivas

Active member
Not Scientology. Hubbard took credit for other group's work -- as usual.

When it comes to actual Hubbard "tech", it can't work in the real world.
Scientologists were collaborating in all that. I remember the strongest push for abolishment of the IRS, in the mid 90's, it were scientologists pushing law suits against the IRS. Scientologists have been the ones steadilly demanding the abolishment of psychiatry.
 

Cuitlahuac Rivas

Active member
You seem to be frozen at the 1970s mindset.

After so many years OUT, why have you not moved beyond the dogma?

Most people have.
I give a clap that you have moved beyond the dogma. The problem is that now even politicians are describing how this planet is a Prisson Planet.
 

Zertel

Well-known member
Apologies for not having read this thread very carefully, but is there a difference between an INDIE SCIENTOLOGIST and a "FREE SCIENTOLOGIST"?

Some years ago I had a slight understanding that there were more than one (1) denomination of the Scientology religion. From what I recall. . .

COS Scientologist: The original religion, standard KSW tech, fanatically follows all "scripture" written by L. Ron Hubbard---including but not limited to POLICIES, BULLETINS, TAPES, BOOKS, ETHICS TECH, ADMIN TECH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVES & ADVICES. The COS Scientologist also agrees and supports all activities of the secretive thug activities of OSA, RTC, CMO, SO and other hidden-from-view fair game attacks on anyone who criticizes or interferes in any way with Scientology's fraud, criminal money rackets and/or "black ops" terrorism.

Indie Scientologist: A Scientologist who wants to be like Hubbard or Miscavige and make their own policies/tech about what is "standard tech" and what is okay (or not okay) to do.

Ron's Org Scientologist: A Scientologist who no longer gets F/Ns on the crazy space-opera lunacy of the COS or Indie Bridge---and is requiring a far more potent drug dose to get that old delusionally euphoric OT feeling again. So, they become devotees of a Scientology leader (Captain Bill Robertson) who was even crazier, more paranoid and more obviously insane than Hubbard/Miscavige.

Where does Free Scientology fit into all this "spiritual technology"?

.
"The COS Scientologist also agrees and supports all activities of the secretive thug activities of OSA, RTC, CMO, SO and other hidden-from-view fair game attacks on anyone who criticizes or interferes in any way with Scientology's fraud, criminal money rackets and/or "black ops" terrorism. "

In my pre internet scn experience which ended in 1982 I only had a vague idea of what the Gauardian's Office or whatever it was called back then did. I probably assumed it was some branch of the organization which had the responsibility to defend scn from unwarranted attacks in a legal manner.

Current rank and file scientologists avoid reading "entheta" and may be as uniformed as I was back then. There is a contingent on Rinder's blog who agree that ALL scientologists are criminally complicit which is not my opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UTR

Bill

Well-known member
Scientologists were collaborating in all that. I remember the strongest push for abolishment of the IRS, in the mid 90's, it were scientologists pushing law suits against the IRS. Scientologists have been the ones steadilly demanding the abolishment of psychiatry.
Yeah... and psychiatry was gone!!

No?

Then ... and psychiatry was damaged!

Nope.

But ... psychiatry noticed something!

No.

Another Scientology "success story" (aka miserable failure) :duh:

As for the IRS, it is still here. However, Miscavige did get religious recognition. But was achieved NOT through Scientology "tech". NOT through Scientology "admin tech". It was achieved through non-Scientology lawyers and it made Miscavige rich.
 
Top