I think its is a bit of a stretch to say that he was behind every attack on the CoS, but I think in the end he fell into the same hole as his dad: He said some true things, but mixed it up with gross exaggerations and some outright lies. He reached a point where this became self-defeating and he was forced into more and more lies to cover up his previous ones.<snip>
Ron DeWolf hooked up with enemies of his father and ultimately ran off with them in November 1959 ( according to an HCO PL about it). His very noisy public attacks and refusal to reconcile with his dad ultimately got him disinherited. The FBI documents recovered by FOIA show that 'Nibs" had a hand in pretty much every major attack on Co$ and his father in the 1960's and he piled up legal expenses in multiple failed lawsuits - especially the failed 1983 Hubbard Estate lawsuit.
The way I see it, this guy figuratively cut down a tree of lies, built his own bed out of it, and then had to sleep in it.
When I was inside, I never heard about the hole or about forcing people to crawl on their hands and knees until they bleed. I was in continental management mind you, so if I did not know then no way in hell would regular Joe Shmoe public scientologists know anything.The Water Torture in the post above on Kurt Weiland discussed in depth here ~~
Start 7.09
Man, I really Hate Straw Men. Read what I actually wrote again. "Had a hand in.." is what I wrote.I think its is a bit of a stretch to say that he was behind every attack on the CoS,
Apologies then.Man, I really Hate Straw Men. Read what I actually wrote again. "Had a hand in.." is what I wrote.
Then I suggest studying the FOIA recovered FBI files.
DeWolf sent false reports to the FDA in 1963 FDA E-Meter attack - then recanted after legal action.
He sent false reports to the IRS in the 1968 Exempt Status revocation- then recanted after legal action.
He made False Reports to the all the major hit piece book authors - then recanted after legal actions
So, he either lied initially or lied to Judges in Courts of Law when he recanted - multiple times.
He compromised (in the Intelligence sense) himself. Nothing he ever said or wrote can be trusted as true fact without independent corroborating documentation.
(sigh) I didn't say that, either. I wrote "pretty much every major attack on Co$ and his father in the 1960's". The words "major" and "1960's" and the phrase "pretty much" all specify a very limited subset of the universe of "all attacks on Co$ or Hubbard", do they not ?I'd still doubt that he had a hand in every single one,
Well, I don't want to fight over words. If you meant to say that Ron jr had a role in "some attacks in the 60s" or in "many attacks in the 60s", then I would agree.(sigh) I didn't say that, either. I wrote "pretty much every major attack on Co$ and his father in the 1960's". The words "major" and "1960's" and the phrase "pretty much" all specify a very limited subset of the universe of "all attacks on Co$ or Hubbard", do they not ?
Perhaps I should have written "every major U.S. government attack in the 1960's", instead.
Important from whose viewpoint ?The two most important 60s "attacks" on the CoS were:
- the 1965 Anderson report in Australia which led to a ban in Victoria and NSW.
- The 1968 UK ban on the entry of foreign scientologists wanting to go to Saint Hill.
The two of us are not under the same government no more. I ain't gonna come back stateside. I wasn't planning to do it 2 years ago and I sure as hell am not gonna come back now. Just sayin'You know our government is flat out forbidden from making official determination of whether any given religion is "valid" in our Constitution, right ? No banning a particular religion here.
At this point it is a simple difference of opinion. You do not have the facts to convince me, I do not have the facts to convince you. I think that part of the discussion reached a moot point.Important from whose viewpoint ?
I would agree with everything you have to say if it wasn't for the fact that no man has gone clear, OT, or returned from death to prove it.Important from whose viewpoint ?
The 1963 FDA E-Meter attack nearly destroyed the subject entirely in the U.S.
The 1968 I.R.S. revocation of Income Tax Exemption nearly bankrupted all the U.S. Organizations paying off the tax liability that had not previously existed.
By comparison, the 1968 U.K. Entry Ban was resolved with ridiculous ease: Hubbard had his Sea Organization establish the American St. Hill Organization in Los Angeles practically overnight and those foreign (to the U.K.) students simply continued on their course checksheets for the St. Hill Special Briefing Course at the new facility under Hubbard trained SHSBC graduates after that.
The Australian ban resulted in a lot less harm to the CoS globally than you appear to imagine. Oh, yeah and both of those bans were PR coups for Scientology in the U.S.
You know our government is flat out forbidden from making official determination of whether any given religion is "valid" in our Constitution, right ? No banning a particular religion here.
The I.R.S. can't and doesn't refuse to grant Income Tax Exemption on the basis of religion, either. They look for violations of the United States Code statute 26 U.S. Code § 501. Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc. and any "organization formed for a religious purpose" found in violation is punished, up to and including revocation of their exempt status.
I don't have to prove any claims I am not now making and never have made in any public venue since I first became involved in the Scientology Internet propaganda war back in 1993 or so.I would agree with everything you have to say if it wasn't for the fact that no man has gone clear, OT, or returned from death to prove it.
So, prove to me so I can agree,
well, why are you a independent scientologists?I don't have to prove any claims I am not now making and never have made in any public venue since I first became involved in the Scientology Internet propaganda war back in 1993 or so.
However, that favorite anti-Scientologist "critic" propaganda talking point is entirely irrelevant to whether or not any of Ron DeWolf's many vicious calumnies against his father represent actual true facts or not.
Like I said, mind your own business. My personal beliefs and Scientology activities or lack thereof are none of your fucking business. Also, they are completely irrelevant to the sub-topic under discussion: Ron DeWolf is a flip-flopper whose claims about his father Ron Hubbard cannot be trusted.And if so, proving what I said would go along way in believing you. Don't you think?
So, you won't answer my questions?Like I said, mind your own business. My personal beliefs and Scientology activities or lack thereof are none of your fucking business. Also, they are completely irrelevant to the sub-topic under discussion: Ron DeWolf is a flip-flopper whose claims about his father Ron Hubbard cannot be trusted.
Your personal views about "the Tech", and the degree to which you may derive income from Tech-related activities, are very relevant to any discussion about motives.Like I said, mind your own business. My personal beliefs and Scientology activities or lack thereof are none of your fucking business. Also, they are completely irrelevant to the sub-topic under discussion: Ron DeWolf is a flip-flopper whose claims about his father Ron Hubbard cannot be trusted.
Appeal to Motive is also known as Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) and is a well known Fallacy of Argument .Your personal views about "the Tech", and the degree to which you may derive income from Tech-related activities, are very relevant to any discussion about motives.
Just an observation here, but from your post there, everything is recanted after legal action.Man, I really Hate Straw Men. Read what I actually wrote again. "Had a hand in.." is what I wrote.
Then I suggest studying the FOIA recovered FBI files.
DeWolf sent false reports to the FDA in 1963 FDA E-Meter attack - then recanted after legal action.
He sent false reports to the IRS in the 1968 Exempt Status revocation- then recanted after legal action.
He made False Reports to the all the major hit piece book authors - then recanted after legal actions
So, he either lied initially or lied to Judges in Courts of Law when he recanted - multiple times.
He compromised (in the Intelligence sense) himself. Nothing he ever said or wrote can be trusted as true fact without independent corroborating documentation.
That a person may derive benefit from a position does not necessarily make his position false, you are correct.Appeal to Motive is also known as Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) and is a well known Fallacy of Argument .
So you are hereby declaring that you derive no income or benefit from delivery of auditing, training, or any other aspect of Scientology "tech", directly or indirectly?Your completely baseless assertion that I somehow derive income from the practice of Scientology wasn't sly enough and I noticed.
One should always carefully examine the purported facts and the reasoning anyone presents. Carl Sagan tells us this in The Demon Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark.That a person may derive benefit from a position does not necessarily make his position false, you are correct.
But it does provide a reason to carefully examine the data he presents.
Moving Goalpost Fallacy, buddy. Like I said before, you don't have a right to demand that particular information in a public venue. OSA fishes for that kind of information in order to target field practitioners for "Fair Game".So you are hereby declaring that you derive no income or benefit from delivery of auditing, training, or any other aspect of Scientology "tech", directly or indirectly?
you stated:One should always carefully examine the purported facts and the reasoning anyone presents. Carl Sagan tells us this in The Demon Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark.
Moving Goalpost Fallacy, buddy. Like I said before, you don't have a right to demand that particular information in a public venue. OSA fishes for that kind of information in order to target field practitioners for "Fair Game".
Nevertheless, I don't sell, trade or barter any sort Scientology services or materials whether Technical or Management and never have.
Any information concerning my practice of Scientology beyond that is none of your fucking business (unless I already have made a public statement about it, try searching ESMB in archive mode). I don't cotton to public interrogations about my personal life by Anonymous Cowards (the old school definition, not implying an association with Anonymous) hiding behind fake Internet identities, so you get nothing more.