EXM - 18 ca. 1992

Copyright (C) 1992 A Voice of the Free Zone (Electra)
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.


If you are on this list for fun and games, then you should realize that there are others who consider Scientology a very serious business and your poking fun at them is immature beyond belief IF YOU HAVE NO DESIRE TO FIND OUT IF THEY ARE REALLY RIGHT OR WRONG. If you are here to find out the truth then of course you may poke as much fun as you wish.

 >     The rest of us probably do it out of a mixture of
 >intellectual stimulation and amusement.  I know that sounds
 >insulting and condescending but it seems unavoidable in view
 >of the fantasticness of some of the Scientology mythology
 >that's expressed here.

Perhaps it is unavoidable due to the depths of depravity that you have let your consciousness sink to. Now look, let's not get into a war here, but just assume for a moment, just PRETEND for a moment that the fantastic reality of the Scientologists happens to be right, would you be able to face having been so wrong and far removed from it all your life? Do YOU really have the confront to find out the Scientologists are right?

If you don't, then it is very unfair to us to bring your noise into the room since we have no recourse to reason with you. If on the other hand you are capable of admitting you are wrong and are really interested to find out the truth, and can admit that others found it before you and that you might have to learn something of importance from someone else, well then by all means make as much noise as you want.

Try to look at it from our point of view. Just what exactly is your purpose on this list? Anything less than finding out the truth makes you an asshole of magnitude, something that you imply the Scientologists are all the time.

 >  I think you have to expect this reaction in terms of the churches
 >past and future behavior.


You insist, possibly intentionally, to confuse Scientology as a subject, and its followers, founders and political body. That's like judging Christ by his Christian followers.

I can only assume that you are doing this on purpose to confuse the matter because you yourself have no interest in discovering the TRUTH as it really is, whether that truth is that Scientology is bunk or correct.

If you are interested in the truth and not in covering up your own little ego, then you will stop discussing the Church, its followers, its founders or the behavior of anyone involved in the Church, and you will stick to discussing the subject and text of Scientology itself.

Perhaps you find it too incredible to believe that the man who discovered the cure for Spiritual insanity was himself Spiritually insane. I grant you this incredibility, for exactly one second, and then I expect you to grow up like the rest of us and try to repair the mess he made of a very worthwhile cause.

The TECH of Scientology, though written by the hand of LRH, stands above LRH and any who follow him. In fact LRH never applied the TECH to himself or anyone else, he was too busy holding the world from above. That is a bit harsh, but you would flip over backwards if you knew what the Free Zoners think about LRH and what he was up to at the end of his life.

So please put the founders and the followers out of your mind, and take up the torch of TRUTH, for it was TRUTH at 100.0 on the Expanded Tone Scale that spoke via LRH, and possibly was quite fed up with his shenanigans.

If you judge EVEN ONCE Scientology by its founders or followers, then it can be stated unequivocably that your own intentions are not pure and that you do not worship TRUTH but some other God or idol of stone, perhaps money or self aggrandizement. In which case you are no better than LRH and deserve the same fate that he is destined for.

 >For a group that includes the word 'science'
 >in their name, they could hardly be less scientific.

You keep SAYING THIS as if you know what you are talking about. Science is the result of observation, hypothesis and experimentation. Scientology STRICTLY followed those lines in its development and is therefore a science as sure as chemistry.

You can not possibly know anything of significance of the development of Scientology, of the observations, of the hypotheses and experimentation that went into it, and you also can not know much of the concrete results that arise out of proper application of these discoveries.

Now if you had read all of LRH's research papers and listened to his 500 tapes given during the early years, and had read all of his books like, 'Evolution of a Science' and 'Science of Survival' you would have a very clear idea of just how much work went into experimenting with people, making observations and drawing conclusions. That people got better, started to remember their past with immaculate perception and recall, regained basic purposes so old there are not numbers to count the age, and eventually got out of their bodies so that they could not be regimented or imprisoned by them, goes to prove conclusively that Scientology works and that the scientific work that went into making it work was all worth while.

That YOU don't BELIEVE in any of these fantastic results, leaves us wondering just how SCIENTIFIC your BELIEFS are, since they are founded on nothing except your own desire for a good time at the expense of the Scientologists. How many thousands of hours have you spent studying and doing experimentation with the Tech of Scientology to determine if it really produces the result it claims? Or do you get your hard and fast data from the National Enquirer or books written by others like yourself who could not and did not make the Tech do anything of import.

 >Their beliefs
 >and practices are not put to the test
 >based upon scientific methods.

This is YOUR BELIEF. Just because you were whacking your meat the decade it was being tested you now claim no tests were ever done.

This is preposterous. It is not necessary for the whole world to be present at the testing of a truth for that truth to be tested and known to be workable. All it takes is one person and then that one person knows it is true. Of course he can not expect anyone else to believe him unless he lets them test it too, but he has no moral obligation to let them do so.

If his heart is good he will want others to have the benefit of the data that he has determined to be true, especially if its benefits are as great as those claimed for Scientology, but he does not OWE it to anyone to let them in on his work.

 >The institution itself operates under principles of secrecy that put
 >the CIA to shame,

Quite true, and if you were involved in the development of a weapon as powerful as an Atomic Bomb you would also cloak your every move in secrecy. You can CLAIM that they wish secrecy because they really do not have anything at all, but that would be whistling into the wind and you know it. There is nothing more dangerous on this Earth than a full OT, they can move matter by looking at it, they can wander free where ever they want, there are no secrets from them, they can go behind other people's head and act for them, they can defuse an atomic bomb in flight.

Now you can withdraw into your terminal stupidity and claim that all this is nonsense, in which case you are no longer worth talking to as your reality would be too different from ours, but if you concede the possibility of these things, then you yourself must admit that secrecy would be desirable at least in the early stages, and that public proof would be the last thing good for anyone.

 >not the openness that characterizes and is required
 >for true scientific processes.

Required? This is fucking bullshit and you know it. All it takes is one person to test a truth and see if it works. Giving a truth greater credence because more than one person was able to duplicate the result is fine IF YOU NEED TO HAVE YOUR CREDENCES DETERMINED BY THE OPINIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE.

I know I exist. I don't need anyone else's opinions on the matter. If I can get out of my body and go wandering around the pentagon and listen to what they are saying, then who the fuck cares if all the milk toast weenies in the world are lining up screaming 'prove it! prove it! It's not true unless you prove it to meeeeeee!' They can all go fuck themselves, right?

What would matter to me is that I could do such a thing and had a responsibility to use it in a correct fashion, and PROVING IT TO A WHOLE PILE OF WHINING MAMA'S BOYS THAT I COULD DO IT WOULD NOT BE THAT RESPONSIBILITY!

 >hence, one is forced to conclude that
 >the choice of name is for propaganda purposes
 >and an abuse of the term.

You can force yourself to conclude anything you desire to assuage your own ego and ignorance. Come Judgement Day, TRUTH will eat you up and spit you out.

The term Scientology is an early Whole Track term, it was designed at the beginning of time by US to be the name of the science that we eventually worked up to free ourselves from this universe.

Granted that is just more fantastic gobbledygook to you, but then you can't remember your whole track and others can. Perhaps you just can't imagine getting this far gone and never noticing that you had gone down the tubes as an Immortal Spiritual Being. Are you willing to admit the possibility of what I am saying about whole track? How then would YOU build an experiment to prove to YOU that you existed before this life?

You should be the first to admit that no one can ever prove to you that THEY have lived before. The only way you will ever know if its all true, is to remember yourself, right? But if you have shut down your own memory through ages of misadventure, who then are you going to demand proof of?

Who OWES it to you?

 >Some of this behavior is understandable and expected from some,
 >but make up your minds which you're going to be: science or religion.
 >There's to much antithesis in the methods to be both.

((Why? Science is a field of knowledge concerning external physical phenomenon. Religion is a field of knowledge concerning internal spiritual phenomenon. The METHODS are the same, observe, hypothesize, predict, observe some more and verify or correct.))

There was until Scientology came along.

 >  I don't think a brainwashed person generally realizes or
 >acknowledges the brainwashing so the claim that it didn't
 >happen is not proof.

I don't think that a fucking asshole realizes he's a fucking asshole either.

Asserting to people that they don't think they are brainwashed because they are brainwashed only serves to bolster your own ego and false arguments.

Can YOU prove that you are not brainwashed? By your own arguments you can not. So I would leave the subject alone lest someone comes along and points the finger at YOU.

(("People who believe that 'past lives' are brainwashing, were brainwashed in past lives to believe so." - Electra))

 >However, it's also no proof that it
 >did either
 >hence this claim leaves the entire issue open until an outside,
 >objective party examines the situation freely and on a large
 >statistical scale (we can always find cases pro and con on an
 >anecdotal basis or false conclusions from too small a sample).
 >Is the church willing to lift its veil of secrecy and paranoia
 >to permit this ?

No. No one in their right mind would flaunt full OT power in order to prove that they had it. They might flaunt some tech to help you get reality on your memory problem at which point you would realize that OT was POSSIBLE. Then it becomes a whole new ball game.

The Church is not paranoid, the government and the FDA have for the longest time been scared stiff of the Church and their ability to produce OT's. You assume its all just bullshit and the government thinks so too.

The truth is the government is not a fucking asshole, and knows damn well that the world is a spiritual place and that OT powers are possible and desirable and out of their reach. Somewhere around 1960 they finally realized that Scientology had what they feared most and started their campaign to destroy, discredit or own and control the Church.

Due to the power of the actual OT's on the Church's side they survived all such attacks except for the last. The Church is now owned and controlled by a government.

 >What is Scientology desirous of
 >concealing from the public ?

Well the CHURCH is desirous of concealing that they are up to their ears in Corruption, Temptation and Seduction.

Scientology is desirous of concealing for a while just how far gone everybody is because it would cause a mass panic if people realized that this here Church was producing Atomic Powered OT's by the hundreds. Of course they aren't, but they COULD if they would get their ETHICS in.

The Free Zoners don't have any such problems with ethics, so OT's are being produced at full speed.

 >  Hmmm, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a religion founded on
 >principles. Sounds like they're preparing for the new crusades.

Oh they are, they are. They fully expect a war to break out between the governments of the world and extant OT's. It may be a quiet war, but it will be a fight to the death for control of Earth.

About the only thing good that can be said for this, is that the true OT's in the Church are not bad guys, their hands are somewhat tied. So to the degree that the Church produces real OT's, they're doing good for the world.

People used to be OT's long ago. They lost their power because they had power without wisdom and ethics. It is impossible to get that power back without doing it right this time. Thus there is nothing to fear from an OT unless your own ethics are criminal.

However the Church is producing a lot of people who claim to be OT's and have the Certification of an OT, but who have not really made the grade. These guys you have to watch out for. Their ethics are still out as witnessed by the fact that they allow themselves to go gaily up the Bridge without actually attaining the full EP of each state.

 >     Religion is supposed to (for us pc's) be about
 >enlightenment, not conditioning and discipline.  In my
 >limited experience, military training is about learning to
 >react in a conditioned manner to established scenarios in
 >order to maximize the survival and benefit of the
 >organization, it is not about maximizing the benefit of the
 >individual or his/her welfare.  That is how a conditioned
 >method differs from scientific methods of psychology and
 >what makes it appear cult-like.

Yeah, yeah, sad to say. LRH was a military man. What excuse can I offer? There ain't none. But look, even the Japanese are running their corporations like the military now, with boot camp and all. That's really what is going on in Scientology with some unfortunate extremes. It is just an insanity on the loose. The answer is to audit it with standard Scientology Technology. The Church could use some auditing. They even have the money to pay for it.

 >     I don't think the claim was that pc's were being
 >repetitively drilled, it was that the Auditors were to
 >ensure no deviation from accepted dogma and to avoid any
 >independent critical thought about the practice and

You have no business stating anything about Auditors, the Auditors code or Auditing as you are below ignorance on the subject.

If Auditors have ever been instructed to ensure no deviation from accepted dogma, again something you know nothing about, then I assure you that the whole Church where this happened should be burned to the ground.

 >It is
 >merely part of an unscientific belief system like any other

This statement is merely part of your unscientific belief system. You can ASSERT Scientology is unscientific belief all you want, that just means you played hookey the day the experiments were done.

>Since brainwashing is not a scientific term it's difficult to >ascertain what is meant by the claim that they are or are not. Perhaps >you would like to elaborate what is meant by the claim that they are >less brainwashed than anyone who is not a Scientologist? A pretty all >encompassing and self-righteous claim on its face.

Well if you are an Immortal Spiritual Being who can exist independent of a body and you are living a life AS a body with no memory of your responsibility for having chosen that body, and no cognizance of your immortality, that would seem to be pretty brainwashed now wouldn't it?

If you take such a being and get him to confess what is scaring him about Immortality, assuming he lives through it, and he suddenly gets out of his body and has nothing further to do with such pretenses, then that would seem to be less brainwashed now wouldn't it?

If some guy comes along and pretends he is a horsey and pats himself on the rump and says, Giddyap! you would think such a being a bit brainwashed. He thinks he is a horse.

Well your average thetan thinks he IS the body he is INSIDE OF. Cute.

So you find out why he is playing this deadly pretense on him self, WHAT HE IS HIDING FROM, and he gets out of his body, his body gets well, and he goes off and makes stars again. That would be unbrainwashing him.

 >Oh, this rational, erudite discourse has certainly convinced me.

Just remember there are OT's on this list, you come off as awfully fucking dumb to someone who can get out of their body and move things by looking at them.

Before you take on Scientology, you should consider well the possibility that all the fantastic stuff is true.

Then be circumspect when you attack, and only attack what you are dead certain of, otherwise you will have a sorry case of foot in mouth disease and while you think you are making fun of the OT's, the OT's will be laughing at you.

 >>     The process of taking a person up through the
 >>Scientology Grades is
 >>one of raising them up the Awareness Characteristic Chart level by,
 >>from hope and help up through clearing and source.

 >  if you want to convince or at least enlighten us great unwashed,
 >have to drop the jargon, otherwise the effect and
 >apparent intention is to
 >create an aura of mystery and superiority.

Well there is both mystery and superiority. If someone is going to show you how to regain your full OTdom then surely they are superior to you for the moment.

If you are overwhelmed by the jargon, that's too bad, perhaps a baby course in Scientology could be invented for the illiterate.

 >Oh, but I forgot, scientists are probably
 >your enemies and cant understand because they haven't
 >reached a high enough level in the spiritual hierarchy.

Scientists are not our enemy. Smug fucking assholes are our enemy. Get your ass clean before you enter the forum.

 >What makes you think that we should think your crap is any
 >any better than the rest of ours? Intellectual perfume ?

What the fuck do you want? Proof? What would happen to you if an OT walked in the room and moved something with his mind?

Would you go to work the next day? Would it make any sense to?

Would you tell all the guys, hey guess what I saw yesterday!

This OT dude, man, picked up my bong and floated it across the room!

Just how much proof are you able to stand?

Fools rush in where angels dare not tread.


Previous Page

Table of Contents

Next Page