The Scientologirl Independent Scientology YouTube channel associated with the Advanced Organization of the Great Plains

Veda

Well-known member
It's not the same today as 40 years ago. The internet has changed things enormously. You have a vast amount of information available in a matter of seconds. Quite different than having to visit a library which may or may not have critical books on the shelves.
When I visited my local library, long before the existence of the Internet, there was an enormous amount of written material from magazines - on Hubbard, Dianetics, and Scientology - stored in the library's archives. There were enormous reference books that listed materials by subject. After locating the material, and asking the Librarian, I was given the requested magazines, one after the other.

This was bulkier and more time consuming than surfing the Net with a computer, but it was not difficult.

What's striking to me is that, despite having all this information available - and having read it, and I spent days reading - my very subjective, and limited, experiences with Scientology, with Hubbard's books and a few people I liked, who were also Scientologists, were enough, for me, at that time, to discount everything negative that I had read.

This same thing is happening today.

A person meets a Scientologist, and the Scientologist creates a good impression. A person reads something and it makes sense, or experiences a technique and it seems to work.

None of the very extensive negative material I had read in the library warned me about any of that.


Even still it seems they are able to bring in a few new people.

ESMB had a much more diverse set of inhabitants in its early days. It would please me greatly if we had more members. Even the Leons, Mark Bakers and BB's. Time marches on and people move on too. A few more Gadflys and Lionhearts would be most welcome.

Carry on! Free speech is alive and well here.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Think about it.
No.

You keep trying to make a point and it just isn't working. True Believers and dabblers can come here and I, for one, will always treat them with respect.

I do not and will not treat Hubbard's lies and Hubbard's crimes and Hubbard's failed tech with any kind of respect. Hubbard and his "tech" should be exposed for what they are. Every time.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
Expressing an opinion or making a suggestion is not attempted editing or censoring. What nonsense!
.
Hey Veda, you keep saying you want more members. Sounds good.

Instead of spending so much time/effort trying to correct the opinions that others post, why don't you instead focus on writing more material that attracts more people to come here?

In my view, membership is a function of how entertaining and/or thought provoking the material is. If Scientologists or Indie Scientologists leave this website it's because they cannot tolerate people disagreeing with them. No mystery there---that's an extremely well-known personality flaw that Hubbardites have--they have a tone 40 intention to be "TOTAL CAUSE" over everyone else. LOL

.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
.
Hey Veda, you keep saying you want more members. Sounds good.

Instead of spending so much time/effort trying to correct the opinions that others post, why don't you instead focus on writing more material that attracts more people to come here?

In my view, membership is a function of how entertaining and/or thought provoking the material is. If Scientologists or Indie Scientologists leave this website it's because they cannot tolerate people disagreeing with them. No mystery there---that's an extremely well-known personality flaw that Hubbardites have--they have a tone 40 intention to be "TOTAL CAUSE" over everyone else. LOL

.
Be a little diplomatic and they won't leave so often.

People change. Be tolerant.

You were once them.
 

Veda

Well-known member
"The subject of Ethics cannot be enforced. It has to be a personal thing, per LRH, and you'd be surprised how many people don't understand that," says Scientologirl.

Was "ethics a personal thing" when Hubbard wrote, in his Manual on Dissemination of Material, of March 1955:


...Always attack... if you discover that some group calling itself 'precept processing' has set up and established a series of meetings in your area, you should do all you can to make things interesting for them... The least that could be done in such as area is the placement of a suit against them... The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.

The law can be used very easily to harass... If possible, of course, ruin him utterly...



Or, ten years later, in an Executive Letter of 27 September of 1965? when Hubbard provided more instructions for Scientologists on how to deal with those who defiantly do unauthorized auditing:


Treatment - They are each Fair Game, can be sued or harassed.

Any meeting held by them should be torn up. The names of persons attending should be collected and they should be labelled SP...

Harass these people in any possible way...


Tear up any meetings and get the names of those attending and issue SP orders on them...


First published in 1968, the book Scientology Ethics featured long lists of Crimes and High Crimes:


"Suppressive acts include public disavowal of Scientology... public statements against Scientology... continued membership in a divergent group; continued adherence to a Suppressive Person or group..."



Below is also from1968, as published in the Auditor newspaper:



And this is a photo and caption from the Auditor newspaper of 1968:




And another photo and caption, from 1968, of a Class VIII student being thrown over the side of the ship into the sewage-laden dock water:





From Flag Order 909 of 1968:

The purpose of Ethics is:

TO REMOVE COUNTER-INTENTIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.


And having accomplished that the purpose becomes

TO REMOVE OTHER-INTENTIONEDNESS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT...







:blink:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

It's like she's trying to get that skunk smell off of her. One small problem though.

LOL, something is indeed skunky!

What's the small problem? That she is trying to use propaganda, "Big Lies" and gaslighting to hide the fact that she is promoting the same fraudulently corrupt hoax that L. Ron Hubbard victimized others with?

Or is it that she is is way too late (with way too little perfume) to try to mask the stench coming from the unchanged diaper of the religion known as the COS (Church of Skunkology)?

.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
VIDEO: The Church of Scientology vs. Independent Scientology




/
.

I think her videos promoting INDIE Scientology fail and fall with a dull thud because by sharply criticizing the Church of Scientology for being money-crazed fanatics who use "ethics" as a hammer to terrorize Scientologists into obeying/donating—she is openly admitting that Scientology does not work. If the tech worked as she claims, all the unethical corruption & criminality she points out would have been "erased" when Scientologists went Clear.

I think what she is lacking is a better slogan to convince marks to donate to her instead of the COS.


"HEY, SCIENTOLOGY DOESN'T WORK IN THE CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY!
SO YOU SHOULD PAY ME INSTEAD, BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW--THE TECH
MIGHT WORK IN MY INDIE CENTER AND EVEN IF IT DOESN'T AND YOU LOSE
YOUR ETERNITY, AT LEAST YOU DON'T LOSE SO MUCH OF YOUR MONEY"


--alternate slogan--

"CHOOSE INDIE SCIENTOLOGY--OUR LIES COST 50% LESS!
AND WE PROMISE TO NEVER USE L. RON HUBBARD'S
SUPPRESSIVE ETHICS TECH ON YOU
(UNLESS YOU CRITICIZE US)


.
.
 

Dotey OT

We Finally Got a Puppy!
.




LOL, something is indeed skunky!

What's the small problem? That she is trying to use propaganda, "Big Lies" and gaslighting to hide the fact that she is promoting the same fraudulently corrupt hoax that L. Ron Hubbard victimized others with?

Or is it that she is is way too late (with way too little perfume) to try to mask the stench coming from the unchanged diaper of the religion known as the COS (Church of Skunkology)?

.
You know, I have come to appreciate the fact that you don't see all nuances immediately.

I was thinking the basic basic of this upside triangle is, maybe, "Begging the Question?"
 
Top