Dangerous People
Homer Wilson Smith
These people who judge Hubbard's work by the smell of their own
assholes are dangerous people.
They work covertly to make auditing illegal and to put spiritual
counseling in the hands of licensed medical professionals.
Such people are much more dangerous than the Church is, and the
Church is about as dangerous as it gets.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
ho...@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Alert
Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
> These people who judge Hubbard's work by the smell of their own
> assholes are dangerous people.
How about people who 'judge Hubbard's work' by his OWN WORDS like;
QUOTE LRH's AFFIRMATIONS
The voice of your holy Guardian is distinct from all the rest. UNQUOTE
Or how about;
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write
that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can
control anybody is to lie to them."
- L. Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952, excerpted
in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL VOLUMES OF
DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418
>
> They work covertly to make auditing illegal and to put spiritual
> counseling in the hands of licensed medical professionals.
Its fair to say that 'auditing' is being opposed because it perpetuates
Hubbards 'reality' and Modern Medicine wouldnt didnt have a bar of it
in the 50's and certainly show no interest 50 years later. Why is that
Homer? maybe many people now realise that the 'contagion' Hubbard wrote
about in DMSMH is actually what Scientology and Dianetics will spread.
> Such people are much more dangerous than the Church is, and the
> Church is about as dangerous as it gets.
>
QUOTE>Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the
power to make you commit injustices<UNQUOTE.
Voltaire
muldoon
Homer, you are way off the mark.
A.r.s. is the place curious people first find when they google
"Scientology" and look under "groups."
And I regularly let people know about a.c.t.
Right now, the Cult appears to be trying to "flat line" (deaden) a.r.s.
with "posters" who _agree_ with the most monocular cliche-ridden
"criticism," attempt to start flame wars, and attack any discussion
beyond, "It's all crap."
Our one official-unofficial resident "reasonable member of the Church
of Scientology, Alex" recently disappeared - to be replaced by no one.
But, before his sudden disappearance, Alex, let slip a few words -
words that he wouldn't explain, when asked, and which he may have later
regretted. He commented on a (fake) "anti-Scientology operation," done
(on a.r.s.) by people ("cut outs") "playing a role" (as actual
critics.)
The loud one we had was called "Playfullminx," and has disappeared; the
"quiet" one (cut and paste, lots of links, and non-archived) is called
"Lord Xenu." And someone called "out_of_the_dark" - who also _agrees_,
and concentrates on attacking one particular individual - seems also to
be one of the gang.
And, of course, since they _agree_, at least, some are buying onto
their "sincerity."
Where this will lead - or whether this tactic will be abandoned - I
have no idea. But right now, instead of "arguing with," or engaging in
overt attack on the NG (except for Barbara S. and regular Cult
"anti-psychiatry" spammers), the tactic in use is that of "killing with
agreement."
Into this atmosphere, I, and Phil, and a few others, are voices for a 3
dimensional view.
One of many recent threads re. "auditing":
Kevin Brady
have valued your contributions. Phil, on the other hand: his posts once
held some interest to me, but seem to have degenerated into opposing Hubbard
and what he sees as Hubbardites. While that game might be fun, or at least
fascinating, this forum is for the discussion of ideas related to clearing,
from my understanding, and not about conducting a war against the Church or
those who find value in any of it's teachings. I'd be happy to see his
contributions here if they were confined to his opposition to clearing
ideas, where he explains what flaws he perceives, etc. Instead, he just
attacks the source. And while this has a certain amount of validity in
terms of debunking Hubbard as an expert on psychology, or in exposing that
many ideas were adopted from others, and that some of his sources were not
necessarily credible characters, either, it gets OLD, beyond a certain
point. Because, keeping all of that in mind, this doesn't on-its-face
discredit any ideas Hubbard presented (whether he authored them or not).
Just discuss the clearing ideas on their own merits, from a logical
standpoint or a practical standpoint. If there is some scientific evidence
that clearing is harmful, or helpful, I'm happy to read it and look at it.
I would be interested in discussing Hubbard's use of occult material and
symbols in scientology, as that can show some of his motivations, if it's
accurate. Caroline Letkemen (SP?) wrote a lot of interesting articles on
"left-handed path" stuff that was "enturbulating", in that it shook up some
"stable data", and did lay some unpleasant attribuations of intention at
Hubbard's feet. I was fine with that, because her expositions were
well-researched, and I thought came to inescapable conclusions, if you
accept all her data (which I was willing to entertain doing). But even that
is not the "whole story". My point is that negative discussion of clearing
is totally tolerable from my viewpoint, so long as it is based in logic,
it's coherent, and doesn't resort to personal attacks on other posters, ad
hominem attack on sources of arguments, etc.
BTW, Phil never apologized to me for the false accusations he made about me.
He's quite willing to drag other people's names in the dirt as part of his
game.
I'm happy not to read his posts, as I don't find them edifying, but I'm also
happy to use my kill-file.
--
Kevin G. Brady
It's not about me.
"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms."
- Socrates (470-399 B.C.)
http://www.myspace.com/clear_objectives
http://www.tir.org
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/sands.htm
http://www.futurepsychiatry.com
"muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1153639946....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
starfire
> Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
> > These people who judge Hubbard's work by the smell of their own
> > assholes are dangerous people.
>
> How about people who 'judge Hubbard's work' by his OWN WORDS like;
> QUOTE LRH's AFFIRMATIONS
Probably the only thing you've read that's even related to the subject.
>
> The voice of your holy Guardian is distinct from all the rest. UNQUOTE
>
> Or how about;
>
> "THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write
> that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can
> control anybody is to lie to them."
That's true.
So what's your point????
>
> - L. Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952, excerpted
> in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL VOLUMES OF
> DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418
If he was going to use this as a method of controlling people he would
advertise it?
> >
> > They work covertly to make auditing illegal and to put spiritual
> > counseling in the hands of licensed medical professionals.
>
> Its fair to say that 'auditing' is being opposed because it perpetuates
> Hubbards 'reality' and Modern Medicine wouldnt didnt have a bar of it
> in the 50's and certainly show no interest 50 years later. Why is that
> Homer? maybe many people now realise that the 'contagion' Hubbard wrote
> about in DMSMH is actually what Scientology and Dianetics will spread.
Well if "people" realize this as you say.
Then why support oppressive and unconstitutional legislation or legal
actions?
Wouldn't Scientology fade on it's own with out the support of your cult
THE STATE?
>
> > Such people are much more dangerous than the Church is, and the
> > Church is about as dangerous as it gets.
> >
>
> QUOTE>Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the
> power to make you commit injustices<UNQUOTE.
> Voltaire
I see you quote Arouet out of context, as he was refering to politics.
Here's one for you from the same source:
"Prejudices are what fools use for reason."
See ya.
Alert
starfire wrote:
> Alert wrote:
> > Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
> > > These people who judge Hubbard's work by the smell of their own
> > > assholes are dangerous people.
> >
> > How about people who 'judge Hubbard's work' by his OWN WORDS like;
> > QUOTE LRH's AFFIRMATIONS
>
> Probably the only thing you've read that's even related to the subject.
>
>
>
> >
> > The voice of your holy Guardian is distinct from all the rest. UNQUOTE
> >
> > Or how about;
> >
> > "THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write
> > that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can
> > control anybody is to lie to them."
>
> That's true.
>
> So what's your point????
Hubbard was a pathalogical liar for his own means.
QUOTE LRH's AFFIRMATIONS;
No matter what lies you may tell others they have no physical effect
on you of any kind.
You can tell all the romantic tales you wish. You will remember them,
you do remember them. But you know which ones were lies. UNQUOTE
> >
> > - L. Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952, excerpted
> > in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL VOLUMES OF
> > DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418
>
> If he was going to use this as a method of controlling people he would
> advertise it?
>
Probably because the greatest illusion is the one right in front of
you.
Besides that, Hubbards 'design' is about transference of himself. Got
implant?
> > >
> > > They work covertly to make auditing illegal and to put spiritual
> > > counseling in the hands of licensed medical professionals.
> >
> > Its fair to say that 'auditing' is being opposed because it perpetuates
> > Hubbards 'reality' and Modern Medicine wouldnt didnt have a bar of it
> > in the 50's and certainly show no interest 50 years later. Why is that
> > Homer? maybe many people now realise that the 'contagion' Hubbard wrote
> > about in DMSMH is actually what Scientology and Dianetics will spread.
>
> Well if "people" realize this as you say.
>
Well the proof of the pudding is in the eating..how many people sampled
Hubbards 'pudding' only to spit it out for the implanted beliefd that
it was in 'actuality'?
> Then why support oppressive and unconstitutional legislation or legal
> actions?
Like who...them pesky marcabians? LOL!
> Wouldn't Scientology fade on it's own with out the support of your cult
> THE STATE?
>
Oh but Scientology has in FACT shrunk to an all time low. take into
account Hubbards twisted interpration of the 'agreed upon', and its
ACTUAL that Hubbard was a SATANIST and a pathological liar and
scientology will continue in its downward spiral
> >
> > > Such people are much more dangerous than the Church is, and the
> > > Church is about as dangerous as it gets.
> > >
> >
> > QUOTE>Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the
> > power to make you commit injustices<UNQUOTE.
> > Voltaire
>
> I see you quote Arouet out of context, as he was refering to politics.
>
The quote fits eloquently, considering Scientology is psycho-politics
> Here's one for you from the same source:
>
> "Prejudices are what fools use for reason."
>
> See ya.
>
There's no adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without
knowledge or examination of the facts here my firend, I lived the
Hubbard implant for 16 years
I like Voltire, Einstien also.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not
sure about the universe.
Albert Einstien
Have a nice day. =o)
muldoon
starfire wrote:
> Alert wrote:
-snip-
> >
> > "THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write
> > that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can
> > control anybody is to lie to them."
>
> That's true.
>
> So what's your point????
>
> >
> > - L. Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952, excerpted
> > in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL VOLUMES OF
> > DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418
>
> If he was going to use this as a method of controlling people he would
> advertise it?
>
He did advertise it, but AS SOMETHING DONE BY OTHERS, NOT BY HIM.
Hubbard did a "nothing up my sleeve" on his followers, by describing
what he (knew he) was going to do to them, but (presented it) as
something *someone else* (a bad or "aberrated" person) was going to do.
HE was _never_ going to do it. He made that very plain.
Then he turned around and DID IT.
And you are proof that the trick worked on at least one person! :^)
> > >
-snip-
muldoon
Kevin Brady wrote:
> Well, Muldoon, I've certainly seen cogent arguments coming from you, and
> have valued your contributions. Phil, on the other hand: his posts once
> held some interest to me, but seem to have degenerated into opposing Hubbard
> and what he sees as Hubbardites. While that game might be fun, or at least
> fascinating, this forum is for the discussion of ideas related to clearing,
> from my understanding, and not about conducting a war against the Church or
> those who find value in any of it's teachings. I'd be happy to see his
> contributions here if they were confined to his opposition to clearing
> ideas, where he explains what flaws he perceives, etc. Instead, he just
> attacks the source. And while this has a certain amount of validity in
> terms of debunking Hubbard as an expert on psychology, or in exposing that
> many ideas were adopted from others, and that some of his sources were not
> necessarily credible characters, either, it gets OLD, beyond a certain
> point. Because, keeping all of that in mind, this doesn't on-its-face
> discredit any ideas Hubbard presented (whether he authored them or not).
>
What is "old" for some is *new* news for others.
Hubbard promised enlightenment and delivered a trap with his initials
on it.
Within the trap are pockets of enlightenment - after all it was
designed as an enlightenment trap, so what would one expect?
Hubbard doesn't own enlightenment and he cannot discredit it or taint
it by exploiting it.
However, Hubbard's enlightenment trap warrants a warning label.
And that's reasonable, I think.
starfire
> starfire wrote:
> > Alert wrote:
>
> > Then why support oppressive and unconstitutional legislation or legal
> > actions?
>
> Like who...them pesky marcabians? LOL!
No like the other brain washed, drugged and lobotimized sheep who are
enthralled by the corpratist state.
No extraterrestial aliens need apply!
>
> > Wouldn't Scientology fade on it's own with out the support of your cult
> > THE STATE?
> >
>
> Oh but Scientology has in FACT shrunk to an all time low. take into
> account Hubbards twisted interpration of the 'agreed upon', and its
> ACTUAL that Hubbard was a SATANIST and a pathological liar and
> scientology will continue in its downward spiral
How can you be a "SATANIST" if you don't believe in the devil?
Crowley was a hermitic a follower of Thelma, which is based on a
panthestic religion that preceeded Xianity by thousands of years.
You're views are Christocentric.
I suggest you and your Crowley, Parsons and Hubbard were "satanists"
crowd, do some actual research, instead of mimic the Websites of the
religious right.
> > >
> > > > Such people are much more dangerous than the Church is, and the
> > > > Church is about as dangerous as it gets.
> > > >
> > >
> > > QUOTE>Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the
> > > power to make you commit injustices<UNQUOTE.
> > > Voltaire
> >
> > I see you quote Arouet out of context, as he was refering to politics.
> >
>
> The quote fits eloquently, considering Scientology is psycho-politics
As opposed to the psyop you are proglamating?
>
> > Here's one for you from the same source:
> >
> > "Prejudices are what fools use for reason."
> >
> > See ya.
> >
>
> There's no adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without
> knowledge or examination of the facts here my firend, I lived the
> Hubbard implant for 16 years
Then I'd say have a rather slow learning curve, if it took you 16 years
to figuire it was a con.
>
> I like Voltire, Einstien also.
>
> Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not
> sure about the universe.
> Albert Einstien
So true.
starfire
What we are discussing is a stratagem or a device which would only be
effective if used covertly.
I simply asked why would he advertize it?
So your rebuttal is evasive.
You could say all religion, government and science to a greater lesser
degree uses this mechanism and you are living proof .
>
> -snip-
Kevin Brady
news:1153694483.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
His rebuttal was right on-target. He advertises it for the same reason that
Bush wants you to think about the dangers of Syria. "Look over there,
nothing to worry about over here". Hubbard said "look how evil the psychs
are, they're implanting people (now, ahem... Mr. Mayo, would you please run
around this here pole for a few months in 100 degree weather while we
continuously tell you that you are a suppressive person...) "Nothing to see
here" (now, all of you people that are ostensibly clear, would you please
just convince yourselves that you need to do the "runs" over and over until
the "mockups" become real and you can run them?) "Nothing to see here,
damned Psychs".... Please.
> You could say all religion, government and science to a greater lesser
> degree uses this mechanism and you are living proof .
Lesser, yes.
Kevin Brady
> Alert wrote:
>> starfire wrote:
>> > Alert wrote:
>
>>
>> > Then why support oppressive and unconstitutional legislation or legal
>> > actions?
>>
>> Like who...them pesky marcabians? LOL!
>
> No like the other brain washed, drugged and lobotimized sheep who are
> enthralled by the corpratist state.
>
> No extraterrestial aliens need apply!
Not a whole hell of a lot of people are lobotomized, and most of the people
taking psychiatric medications are taking SSRI's and amphetamines, neither
of which cause a person to lose awareness. (Freak out and see coke bugs,
yes, or maybe want to burn something now and again, but not losing
awareness).
>> > Wouldn't Scientology fade on it's own with out the support of your cult
>> > THE STATE?
>> >
>>
>> Oh but Scientology has in FACT shrunk to an all time low. take into
>> account Hubbards twisted interpration of the 'agreed upon', and its
>> ACTUAL that Hubbard was a SATANIST and a pathological liar and
>> scientology will continue in its downward spiral
>
> How can you be a "SATANIST" if you don't believe in the devil?
>
> Crowley was a hermitic a follower of Thelma, which is based on a
> panthestic religion that preceeded Xianity by thousands of years.
That's Thelema, and it's a myth that it preceded Christianity. He made it
up. And Thelema wasn't a god, it was willpower.
> You're views are Christocentric.
>
> I suggest you and your Crowley, Parsons and Hubbard were "satanists"
> crowd, do some actual research, instead of mimic the Websites of the
> religious right.
Lol. Crowley called himself the Beast, 666. You think that was an
accident? No Christian significance? And Hubbard wanted his mantle.
http://www.carolineletkeman.org/writings/soulhackers.html
>> > > > Such people are much more dangerous than the Church is, and
>> > > > the
>> > > > Church is about as dangerous as it gets.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > QUOTE>Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has
>> > > the
>> > > power to make you commit injustices<UNQUOTE.
>> > > Voltaire
>> >
>> > I see you quote Arouet out of context, as he was refering to politics.
>> >
>>
>> The quote fits eloquently, considering Scientology is psycho-politics
>
> As opposed to the psyop you are proglamating?
Psyop?
starfire
You're reply nor was his cogent.
Neither is you're Quo Vide.
We are not discussing an embellished causis belli that is advertised by
a bunch of War Mongering Neo cons.
The discussion is about controlling others by lies and using it as a
covert operation in order to be effective.
>
> > You could say all religion, government and science to a greater lesser
> > degree uses this mechanism and you are living proof .
>
> Lesser, yes.
Lesser!!!
Our government happens to be the main perpetrator of the above.
Many religions historically are as well.
I'm sure you're familiar with the Nicene Creed.
"Science" in this day and age is one of the biggest offenders!!!
Yet it seems you are obsessed with Scientology.
Kevin Brady
news:alex-FC6CBA.2...@news.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <1153639946....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> I have a marvelous time driving across this great country, the United
> States. I put almost 5000 miles on the car. Wow what a country!
>
> I spent some time in the desert, which is too my liking.
>
> I golfed. Still have the swing although my chances to play are
> infrequent.
>
> Perhaps I was playfullminx, lord xenu and me all at once just to fuck
> with your paranoid head. Or maybe we all vacation at the same time.
>
> In life the simple explaination is frequently the true one.
>
> But the big point in my reply is that you offer nothing to advance
> people spiritually, just to scare them.
>
> So you think scieno and its varients are shit....well point us in the
> correct direction....dont just undermine.
>
> alex.
He has pointed the right direction.
Get rid of CC-OTIII, and take the tech out of the hard-sell, unfounded
claims environment of the Church. Once that's done, do a complete rewrite
of the auditing tech, the admin tech, and the ethics tech such that it
doesn't lead people into servitude of command intention, or any other kind
of servitude.
Luckily, that's already been done.
muldoon
Alex wrote:
> In article <1153639946....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > f6a2ddbec4d3?scoring=d&
>
> Fear not dear muldoon, I have returned from "vacation".
>
> I have a marvelous time driving across this great country, the United
> States. I put almost 5000 miles on the car. Wow what a country!
>
> I spent some time in the desert, which is too my liking.
>
> I golfed. Still have the swing although my chances to play are
> infrequent.
>
> Perhaps I was playfullminx, lord xenu and me all at once just to fuck
> with your paranoid head. Or maybe we all vacation at the same time.
>
> In life the simple explaination is frequently the true one.
>
> But the big point in my reply is that you offer nothing to advance
> people spiritually, just to scare them.
>
> So you think scieno and its varients are shit....well point us in the
> correct direction....dont just undermine.
>
> alex.
More dishonest game-playing from Alex.
Kevin Brady
Actually, both were cogent. You just can't confront the truth.
Justifications for suppressive acts don't fly with me. Your "covert
operation" was done with science fiction for a reason, induced by
amphetamine laced delusion. Hubbard's case was flapping so seriously that
he took the ship down, and left it with the land-lubber "young turks"
because he was so compromised that he couldn't control his own beast any
more.
Let the Church die. It'll be good for clearing. The sooner the better.
Get the whole group of practitioners out of the silly games condition with
ostensible off-world intelligences. It's just not credible. Get back to
getting charge off the case. Enough on the bullshit.
>
>>
>> > You could say all religion, government and science to a greater lesser
>> > degree uses this mechanism and you are living proof .
>>
>> Lesser, yes.
>
> Lesser!!!
>
> Our government happens to be the main perpetrator of the above.
So what? Don't play their game. That's just stupid. Vote for someone who
doesn't play their game, and protest the policies that you object to. Or
better yet, save your energy and keep people in session. Blaming the
government for our apathetic populations willingness to be dominated for the
sake of corporate interest misses the point. The populace has to wake up.
Their responsibility level has to rise. That doesn't happen by playing
games with governments. When the populace is responsible, the leaders will
follow. The same is true of churchies and Hubbard and the whole nine yards.
As long as everyone is referring to Ron as an authority, and backing him up
in his insanity, there is no case gain. Because Ron's Op wasn't just
against governments or "psychiatry", or the marcabs for that matter, it was
against scientologists. And they took it, and shouted Hip Hip
Hoo-fucking-ray! Well fuck that. They all need to think for themselves,
and evaluate the validity of Hubbard's data and his "plans". By making such
"covert", he took this out of their sphere of control, and disenfranchised
them. So now we have a bunch of GATT Rondroids in the Church, and people
who won't toss out the shite and get on with real clearing, there are people
who think the really valuable material is the freaking implant materials.
Golly!
>
> Many religions historically are as well.
Including Scientology.
> I'm sure you're familiar with the Nicene Creed.
>
> "Science" in this day and age is one of the biggest offenders!!!
>
> Yet it seems you are obsessed with Scientology.
Umm.. no, I'm not obsessed with anything other than my own overts and evil
purps.
>
starfire
> "starfire" <sca...@spiesonline.zzn.com> wrote in message
> news:1153691449.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Alert wrote:
> >> starfire wrote:
> >> > Alert wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > Then why support oppressive and unconstitutional legislation or legal
> >> > actions?
> >>
> >> Like who...them pesky marcabians? LOL!
> >
> > No like the other brain washed, drugged and lobotimized sheep who are
> > enthralled by the corpratist state.
> >
> > No extraterrestial aliens need apply!
>
> Not a whole hell of a lot of people are lobotomized, and most of the people
> taking psychiatric medications are taking SSRI's and amphetamines, neither
> of which cause a person to lose awareness. (Freak out and see coke bugs,
> yes, or maybe want to burn something now and again, but not losing
> awareness).
Did I say meds?
>
> >> > Wouldn't Scientology fade on it's own with out the support of your cult
> >> > THE STATE?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Oh but Scientology has in FACT shrunk to an all time low. take into
> >> account Hubbards twisted interpration of the 'agreed upon', and its
> >> ACTUAL that Hubbard was a SATANIST and a pathological liar and
> >> scientology will continue in its downward spiral
> >
> > How can you be a "SATANIST" if you don't believe in the devil?
> >
> > Crowley was a hermitic a follower of Thelma, which is based on a
> > panthestic religion that preceeded Xianity by thousands of years.
>
> That's Thelema, and it's a myth that it preceded Christianity. He made it
> up. And Thelema wasn't a god, it was willpower.
Did I say I was refering to a goddess or god when I mentioned Thelma or
Thelema (spelled either way)?
http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00158/oto1.html
Nor does it change the fact that the OTO, the Gnostic Catholic Church,
the Golden Dawn and .: .: are based on panthestic or as Christians
prefer pagan forms of worship.
As many hermitics , not all, see definition of Gnostic worship....
Now follow along....
Dieties.
Note the plural
You seem well versed in creating straw men.
>
> > You're views are Christocentric.
> >
> > I suggest you and your Crowley, Parsons and Hubbard were "satanists"
> > crowd, do some actual research, instead of mimic the Websites of the
> > religious right.
>
> Lol. Crowley called himself the Beast, 666. You think that was an
> accident? No Christian significance? And Hubbard wanted his mantle.
The above has obvious contradictions which could be considered
apocrypha according to the following:
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/crowley.htm
Though your prejudices are obvious.
Now direct me to any confirmed Historical citation where Hubbard said
he intended to follow in Crowely's foot steps or assume as you put it
"his mantle"or claimed as poor unfortunate Parsons did, that he was the
antichrist?
>
> http://www.carolineletkeman.org/writings/soulhackers.html
I see a favorite link of yours?
How nice.
I've already perused it.
To quote Shakespeare
"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
Kevin Brady
> Kevin Brady wrote:
>> "starfire" <sca...@spiesonline.zzn.com> wrote in message
>> news:1153691449.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Alert wrote:
>> >> starfire wrote:
>> >> > Alert wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Then why support oppressive and unconstitutional legislation or
>> >> > legal
>> >> > actions?
>> >>
>> >> Like who...them pesky marcabians? LOL!
>> >
>> > No like the other brain washed, drugged and lobotimized sheep who are
>> > enthralled by the corpratist state.
>> >
>> > No extraterrestial aliens need apply!
>>
>> Not a whole hell of a lot of people are lobotomized, and most of the
>> people
>> taking psychiatric medications are taking SSRI's and amphetamines,
>> neither
>> of which cause a person to lose awareness. (Freak out and see coke bugs,
>> yes, or maybe want to burn something now and again, but not losing
>> awareness).
>
> Did I say meds?
Oh, did you mean some other drugs? I guess it was a wrong inference, when
your "drugged" was bracketed by brainwashed and lobotomized. My bad. I
should have seen the context that you meant to leave there, but apparently
failed to.
>> >> > Wouldn't Scientology fade on it's own with out the support of your
>> >> > cult
>> >> > THE STATE?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Oh but Scientology has in FACT shrunk to an all time low. take into
>> >> account Hubbards twisted interpration of the 'agreed upon', and its
>> >> ACTUAL that Hubbard was a SATANIST and a pathological liar and
>> >> scientology will continue in its downward spiral
>> >
>> > How can you be a "SATANIST" if you don't believe in the devil?
>> >
>> > Crowley was a hermitic a follower of Thelma, which is based on a
>> > panthestic religion that preceeded Xianity by thousands of years.
>>
>> That's Thelema, and it's a myth that it preceded Christianity. He made
>> it
>> up. And Thelema wasn't a god, it was willpower.
>
> Did I say I was refering to a goddess or god when I mentioned Thelma or
> Thelema (spelled either way)?
>
> http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00158/oto1.html
>
> Nor does it change the fact that the OTO, the Gnostic Catholic Church,
> the Golden Dawn and .: .: are based on panthestic or as Christians
> prefer pagan forms of worship.
Umm... not really. It's not about worship. It's about channeling their
power. The goal is not to be a minion of one of these "deities" (or demons,
as they were often considered, even by those invoking them), but to be their
master. Perhaps to be possessed, but in so offering themselves, creating a
tie that binds. Of course, Crowley wasn't necessarily a believer in any of
this, he used it all as symbolism, and considered those who thought of such
things as objective truth utter fools, and held them in contempt. As he
held Hubbard in contempt. And yes, to Christians, any sort of religious
idea that doesn't involve accepting the Lord Jesus as your own personal
savior is blasphemous, and most of them are stupid enough to lump it all
together as paganism. I would hope we aren't so stupid!
> As many hermitics , not all, see definition of Gnostic worship....
>
> Now follow along....
>
> Dieties.
Or demons. Or angels.
Or extra-terrestrials. Or "things we don't understand yet, and so stand in
awe of".
> Note the plural
>
> You seem well versed in creating straw men.
And you seem very interested in painting with only a certain sort of
palette.
I wouldn't consider Hubbard a Satanist, but I would consider him a person
who was interested in dominating others for the enhancement of his own reach
and greed. To a Christian, there's probably not much difference, as any
master other than Jesus means you are being fooled by the horny guy. I have
seen Christians, sir, and I'm not one of them.
>> > You're views are Christocentric.
>> >
>> > I suggest you and your Crowley, Parsons and Hubbard were "satanists"
>> > crowd, do some actual research, instead of mimic the Websites of the
>> > religious right.
>>
>> Lol. Crowley called himself the Beast, 666. You think that was an
>> accident? No Christian significance? And Hubbard wanted his mantle.
>
> The above has obvious contradictions which could be considered
> apocrypha according to the following:
>
> http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/crowley.htm
>
> Though your prejudices are obvious.
Not at all, and here YOU are practicing at straw men. While some people
like to dress things up in Christian symbology (little cherubs with horns,
yada yada), I'm not one of them. Evil is evil, no matter if the master you
serve is Satan, or yourself. If your will is perverse, and includes the
domination and subjugation of those whom you deceive in order to bleed
completely dry while you divide them against each other and attempt to
destroy the wider society using them as your pawns: well then, let's call a
spade a spade! That's not to be lauded! It's plain sick. And no amount of
justification that OTs cannot be held to "human standards" is rolling
Hubbard out of his responsibility for his own evil purposes. Pretending
that because it had nothing to do with Satan it couldn't therefore be called
evil - why, that's almost Orwellian!
So, since scientologists don't believe in the devil, there is nothing that
they might consider evil? Or is that just a straw man? Call me scarecrow.
> Now direct me to any confirmed Historical citation where Hubbard said
> he intended to follow in Crowely's foot steps or assume as you put it
> "his mantle"or claimed as poor unfortunate Parsons did, that he was the
> antichrist?
Confirmed by who? The people who were there? Or by Hubbard? Or what
historian would you want to look into the matter? How about Gerald
Armstrong, paid to look into Hubbard's own papers and create a biography:
when confronted with the truth of his own life: what was Hubbard's
reaction? More affirmations?
>> http://www.carolineletkeman.org/writings/soulhackers.html
>
> I see a favorite link of yours?
I do enjoy her writing. Do you hold Class IX's in contempt?
> How nice.
Thanks.
> I've already perused it.
>
> To quote Shakespeare
>
> "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
And so could Crowley, or Hubbard. The question is: what was the purpose.
In Hubbard's case, it wasn't what he represented to his followers, or to the
rest of the world. Thus his paranoia. Thus, he died screaming in abject
terror of the beings surrounding him and demanding recourse.
Nighty-night.
starfire
Is this a rhetorical question?
I have no idea what scientologists in general consider evil.
However, I do know that any one who questions Miscavige's motives or
actions, which could be considered 'High Crimes' and 'Suppressive Acts'
according to their own scriptures is either harrassed until they are
willing to conclude that 2+2 does indeed equal 5 or are ejected.
See the case of Randy MacDonald.
>
> > Now direct me to any confirmed Historical citation where Hubbard said
> > he intended to follow in Crowely's foot steps or assume as you put it
> > "his mantle"or claimed as poor unfortunate Parsons did, that he was the
> > antichrist?
>
> Confirmed by who? The people who were there? Or by Hubbard? Or what
> historian would you want to look into the matter? How about Gerald
> Armstrong, paid to look into Hubbard's own papers and create a biography:
> when confronted with the truth of his own life: what was Hubbard's
> reaction? More affirmations?
I question the provenance of Armstrong's documents.
None have been verified as authentic.
Including Affirmations which we are told is written in Hubbard's own
hand yet all you can obtain on the internet is a poorly transcribed
printed copy.
http://www.lermanet.com/reference/Admissions.pdf
Especially in this day and age when it is easy enough to OTR the actual
document.
>
> >> http://www.carolineletkeman.org/writings/soulhackers.html
> >
> > I see a favorite link of yours?
>
> I do enjoy her writing. Do you hold Class IX's in contempt?
"Class IX" is a status awarded to auditors who have completed the NOTs
Auditor's Course formerly known as an Advanced Course Specialist.
These days one does not even have to be Class VIII in order to be
called a Class IX.
All one has to do is the Scientology Levels to IV the New Era Dianetics
Course V and what is called the Class V Graduate course as well as the
above to qualify as a "Class IX".
Therefore, most "Class IX's" have not done the Saint Hill Briefing
Course, which contains the bulk of the subject.
See the new scientology grade chart.
>
> > How nice.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > I've already perused it.
> >
> > To quote Shakespeare
> >
> > "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
>
> And so could Crowley, or Hubbard. The question is: what was the purpose.
> In Hubbard's case, it wasn't what he represented to his followers, or to the
> rest of the world. Thus his paranoia. Thus, he died screaming in abject
> terror of the beings surrounding him and demanding recourse.
You know this because you were there of course?
>
> Nighty-night.
Pleasant dreams :0
Kevin Brady
> In article <44c4709c$1...@news2.lightlink.com>,
> it more address's the spirit rather than the mind. Leave it in.
All of the tech addresses the spirit. If it doesn't, that's a failure on
the part of the auditor and his TRs. He was addressing the mind instead of
the being.
> Let those who dont like it do something else.
Thanks, I will. CC-OTIII, if you are talking about addressing the GPMs and
any valences/entities is a good idea, but not addressing them as writ from
Hubbard's and some other's cases. Instead, pick up the person's GPMs:
he'll tell you what they are. That isn't suggestive or soft-implanting.
> Where does muldoon find whats right? rather than whats wrong?
>
> alex
Read his posts, where he talks about it. I'm not at my home computer, so I
don't have the archives in front of me. Or wait 'til I get home and I'll
repost his post talking about using the valuable parts of the tech without
the inducement to believe space opera.
Kevin Brady
What, no comment?
Not really. And I'm sorry for coming off confrontationally, I've had a bug
in my rug the last few days. The question is a serious one. Because
scientologists ostensibly follow the Code of a Scientologist, and other
codes, dependent on the function they are presently occupying, I'm wondering
if there is a standard of evil and good being assigned. Concepts like
acting from a hidden place to accomplish a function I can understand
(Fabian), but not doing so using deceit, or using false reports, hidden
domination. Sometimes it's necessary to go underground when fighting
asymmetrically. There is a parallel with current events. It would be okay
with me if Hezbollah wanted to operate undertground due to fear of
domination and exploitation by the Israelis. However, kidnapping people and
killing civilians is not okay. Printing pamphlets describing the abuse
their people have suffered, inserting agents to surreptitiously photograph
and document such abuse, broadcasting from covert locations: all of these
are acceptable. Similarly, Hubbard could have done any number of things,
but instead of following his own maxim of operating from a standpoint of
evolution instead of revolution, he inserted agents into federal agencies,
international organizations, etc., and justified it by saying that some
bankers were working for off-planet intelligences (which he couldn't prove
and smacks as just a TAD far-fetched), and that high prices were necessary
to pay for the expense of fighting this battle, the details of which had to
be confidential, eyes only. In other words, an arbitrary.
> I have no idea what scientologists in general consider evil.
Domination and deceit seem against the idea of getting charge off the case
and as-ising old games.
> However, I do know that any one who questions Miscavige's motives or
> actions, which could be considered 'High Crimes' and 'Suppressive Acts'
> according to their own scriptures is either harrassed until they are
> willing to conclude that 2+2 does indeed equal 5 or are ejected.
Well, yes- but this was going on long before Miscavige was around.
> See the case of Randy MacDonald.
Wish I could. The primary documents don't seem to be available via google
searches.
>> > Now direct me to any confirmed Historical citation where Hubbard said
>> > he intended to follow in Crowely's foot steps or assume as you put it
>> > "his mantle"or claimed as poor unfortunate Parsons did, that he was the
>> > antichrist?
>>
>> Confirmed by who? The people who were there? Or by Hubbard? Or what
>> historian would you want to look into the matter? How about Gerald
>> Armstrong, paid to look into Hubbard's own papers and create a biography:
>> when confronted with the truth of his own life: what was Hubbard's
>> reaction? More affirmations?
>
> I question the provenance of Armstrong's documents.
That's convenient.
> None have been verified as authentic.
Verified by who?
> Including Affirmations which we are told is written in Hubbard's own
> hand yet all you can obtain on the internet is a poorly transcribed
> printed copy.
>
> http://www.lermanet.com/reference/Admissions.pdf
A lot of Lerma's information seems very slanted to me to produce negative
reactions to scientology ideas. I don't trust his site as an information
source.
> Especially in this day and age when it is easy enough to OTR the actual
> document.
If you've got it!
>> >> http://www.carolineletkeman.org/writings/soulhackers.html
>> >
>> > I see a favorite link of yours?
>>
>> I do enjoy her writing. Do you hold Class IX's in contempt?
>
> "Class IX" is a status awarded to auditors who have completed the NOTs
> Auditor's Course formerly known as an Advanced Course Specialist.
>
> These days one does not even have to be Class VIII in order to be
> called a Class IX.
>
> All one has to do is the Scientology Levels to IV the New Era Dianetics
> Course V and what is called the Class V Graduate course as well as the
> above to qualify as a "Class IX".
>
> Therefore, most "Class IX's" have not done the Saint Hill Briefing
> Course, which contains the bulk of the subject.
>
> See the new scientology grade chart.
I've heard this before. It continues to astonish me: seems deceptive to
have a "higher class" with less training.
>> > How nice.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> > I've already perused it.
>> >
>> > To quote Shakespeare
>> >
>> > "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
>>
>> And so could Crowley, or Hubbard. The question is: what was the
>> purpose.
>> In Hubbard's case, it wasn't what he represented to his followers, or to
>> the
>> rest of the world. Thus his paranoia. Thus, he died screaming in abject
>> terror of the beings surrounding him and demanding recourse.
>
> You know this because you were there of course?
No. Are you asserting that Hubbard made his purpose of making money as the
primary motivation for scientology's creation known to his followers? Or
are you contradicting that Hubbard's primary purpose was making real money
by starting his own religion? Something else?
starfire
<snip>
> >>
> >> Oh, did you mean some other drugs? I guess it was a wrong inference,
> >> when
> >> your "drugged" was bracketed by brainwashed and lobotomized. My bad. I
> >> should have seen the context that you meant to leave there, but
> >> apparently
> >> failed to.
>
> What, no comment?
I thought your reply covered it.
Sometimes I'm too lazy to respond.
My bad this time.
I've read Snow White, Project Hunter etc.
There is no evidence that Hubbard personally ordered these actions.
They were signed off by either C/S 7 (Mary Sue Hubbard) or the Guardian
(Jane Kember), which is why the Department of Injustice couldn't get an
indictment on Hubbard.
Whether it was correct to run a counter intelligence operation against
a Government that on a daily basis was running their own (Cointelpro,
Chaos etc) against its citizens in contravention of the US Constitution
and the Bill of Rights. Is a question I leave self righteous pompous
moralists to decide.
>
> > I have no idea what scientologists in general consider evil.
>
> Domination and deceit seem against the idea of getting charge off the case
> and as-ising old games.
I agree.
>
> > However, I do know that any one who questions Miscavige's motives or
> > actions, which could be considered 'High Crimes' and 'Suppressive Acts'
> > according to their own scriptures is either harrassed until they are
> > willing to conclude that 2+2 does indeed equal 5 or are ejected.
>
> Well, yes- but this was going on long before Miscavige was around.
>
> > See the case of Randy MacDonald.
>
> Wish I could. The primary documents don't seem to be available via google
> searches.
I see your point.
Must have gone down the ol' memory hole.
Here's a link that refers to them:
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/rtc-boycott.htm
>
> >> > Now direct me to any confirmed Historical citation where Hubbard said
> >> > he intended to follow in Crowely's foot steps or assume as you put it
> >> > "his mantle"or claimed as poor unfortunate Parsons did, that he was the
> >> > antichrist?
> >>
> >> Confirmed by who? The people who were there? Or by Hubbard? Or what
> >> historian would you want to look into the matter? How about Gerald
> >> Armstrong, paid to look into Hubbard's own papers and create a biography:
> >> when confronted with the truth of his own life: what was Hubbard's
> >> reaction? More affirmations?
> >
> > I question the provenance of Armstrong's documents.
>
> That's convenient.
Are you willing to say that the MJ 12 documents are valid as well?
And here I thought you were so derisive about a possible Alien
presence!
Documents aren't that difficult to forge.
>
> > None have been verified as authentic.
>
> Verified by who?
By an unbiased source.
>
> > Including Affirmations which we are told is written in Hubbard's own
> > hand yet all you can obtain on the internet is a poorly transcribed
> > printed copy.
> >
> > http://www.lermanet.com/reference/Admissions.pdf
>
> A lot of Lerma's information seems very slanted to me to produce negative
> reactions to scientology ideas. I don't trust his site as an information
> source.
Niether do I but I chose his site at random.
The others are pretty much the same.
>
> > Especially in this day and age when it is easy enough to OTR the actual
> > document.
>
> If you've got it!
As I alluded , like the Majestic 12 it probably doesn't exist.
>
> >> >> http://www.carolineletkeman.org/writings/soulhackers.html
> >> >
> >> > I see a favorite link of yours?
> >>
> >> I do enjoy her writing. Do you hold Class IX's in contempt?
> >
> > "Class IX" is a status awarded to auditors who have completed the NOTs
> > Auditor's Course formerly known as an Advanced Course Specialist.
> >
> > These days one does not even have to be Class VIII in order to be
> > called a Class IX.
> >
> > All one has to do is the Scientology Levels to IV the New Era Dianetics
> > Course V and what is called the Class V Graduate course as well as the
> > above to qualify as a "Class IX".
> >
> > Therefore, most "Class IX's" have not done the Saint Hill Briefing
> > Course, which contains the bulk of the subject.
> >
> > See the new scientology grade chart.
>
> I've heard this before. It continues to astonish me: seems deceptive to
> have a "higher class" with less training.
I agree.
>
> >> > How nice.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> > I've already perused it.
> >> >
> >> > To quote Shakespeare
> >> >
> >> > "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
> >>
> >> And so could Crowley, or Hubbard. The question is: what was the
> >> purpose.
> >> In Hubbard's case, it wasn't what he represented to his followers, or to
> >> the
> >> rest of the world. Thus his paranoia. Thus, he died screaming in abject
> >> terror of the beings surrounding him and demanding recourse.
> >
> > You know this because you were there of course?
>
> No. Are you asserting that Hubbard made his purpose of making money as the
> primary motivation for scientology's creation known to his followers? Or
> are you contradicting that Hubbard's primary purpose was making real money
> by starting his own religion? Something else?
Neither, I am saying that the 'fact' that Hubbard went crazy is
unconfirmed by credible eye witnesses or substantiated unbiased reports.
Kevin Brady
Was he or wasn't he Source? Do you honestly expect me (or anyone) to
believe that an operation of that scope was undertaken without his
knowledge? Why would Mary Sue suddenly decide to undermine her husband's
authority and place the entire organization in jeopardy?
> There is no evidence that Hubbard personally ordered these actions.
Have you ever heard of plausible deniability? You don't think his wife's
signature on the programs and plans might be an indicator that her husband
was on-board? Do you also believe that Hubbard completely resigned from
administrative/executive control of the Church in 1966?
> They were signed off by either C/S 7 (Mary Sue Hubbard) or the Guardian
> (Jane Kember), which is why the Department of Injustice couldn't get an
> indictment on Hubbard.
So, you do believe that Mary Sue Hubbard planned the whole thing, without
her husband's knowledge and approval? And that she should take
responsibility for it? Or are you saying that the lack of a paper trail to
Hubbard means that he is absolved? There's no paper trail linking me to
many of my overts. Does this mean I don't need to get them off in session?
> Whether it was correct to run a counter intelligence operation against
> a Government that on a daily basis was running their own (Cointelpro,
> Chaos etc) against its citizens in contravention of the US Constitution
> and the Bill of Rights. Is a question I leave self righteous pompous
> moralists to decide.
That's a great attitude. How does it make you right? Ever hear that two
wrongs don't make a right? What ever happened to Clean Hands? Guess it
should be followed by parenthetical statements (Confidential: Clean Hands
is just a bullshit story, in reality, get dirty faster than your opponent,
so that you can become entrapped in a games condition with him)
>> > I have no idea what scientologists in general consider evil.
>>
>> Domination and deceit seem against the idea of getting charge off the
>> case
>> and as-ising old games.
>
> I agree.
>> > However, I do know that any one who questions Miscavige's motives or
>> > actions, which could be considered 'High Crimes' and 'Suppressive Acts'
>> > according to their own scriptures is either harrassed until they are
>> > willing to conclude that 2+2 does indeed equal 5 or are ejected.
>>
>> Well, yes- but this was going on long before Miscavige was around.
>>
>> > See the case of Randy MacDonald.
>>
>> Wish I could. The primary documents don't seem to be available via
>> google
>> searches.
>
> I see your point.
>
> Must have gone down the ol' memory hole.
>
> Here's a link that refers to them:
>
> http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/rtc-boycott.htm
More likely that the "primary source" made an out of court settlement with
the Church, and is no longer publishing them, or giving permission to
publish them to others. Echoes of Zegel.
>> >> > Now direct me to any confirmed Historical citation where Hubbard
>> >> > said
>> >> > he intended to follow in Crowely's foot steps or assume as you put
>> >> > it
>> >> > "his mantle"or claimed as poor unfortunate Parsons did, that he was
>> >> > the
>> >> > antichrist?
>> >>
>> >> Confirmed by who? The people who were there? Or by Hubbard? Or what
>> >> historian would you want to look into the matter? How about Gerald
>> >> Armstrong, paid to look into Hubbard's own papers and create a
>> >> biography:
>> >> when confronted with the truth of his own life: what was Hubbard's
>> >> reaction? More affirmations?
>> >
>> > I question the provenance of Armstrong's documents.
>>
>> That's convenient.
>
> Are you willing to say that the MJ 12 documents are valid as well?
>
> And here I thought you were so derisive about a possible Alien
> presence!
>
> Documents aren't that difficult to forge.
That's true. But introducing the idea that they were forged is a separate
claim, requiring it's own evidence. The presence of aliens amonst us is a
possibility, but it is not a proven fact, telepathic sessions to the
contrary notwithstanding. It is such an amazing claim, that it would
require phenomenal evidence for me to believe. Without that evidence,
basing your entire strategy to "clear the planet" on handling that presence
seems exceedingly thin. In fact, it seems flat-out paranoid, to me.
>> > None have been verified as authentic.
>>
>> Verified by who?
>
> By an unbiased source.
Which doesn't exist.
So, his adopting the title Commodore, and developing a paramilitary
organization to handle off-planet, nigh immortal threats to spiritual
freedom doesn't seem just a little crazy to you?
starfire
> "starfire" <sca...@spiesonline.zzn.com> wrote in message
> news:1153791165.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > Kevin Brady wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >>
I don't expect you to believe anything I have to say but the facts of
the matter are that Hubbard was never indicted.
You can work out as many conspiracy theories you want based on the fact
that he was "source" but the fact is, unlike Nixon for example there is
no smoking gun.
No tape, no document that was found in the raid, which exceeded the
actual warrant by the way, that could prove conclusively that Hubbard
had anything to do with the operation.
Now if you would like to represent the US Government and prove for all
us mere mortals that Hubbard was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Then let's see your evidence!!!
Just because you or any of the advance brain antrophied morons who
claim to be "critics" say he must be guilty because he was "source"
doesn't make it so, not on this board and obviously not before a Grand
Jury.
>
> > There is no evidence that Hubbard personally ordered these actions.
>
> Have you ever heard of plausible deniability? You don't think his wife's
> signature on the programs and plans might be an indicator that her husband
> was on-board? Do you also believe that Hubbard completely resigned from
> administrative/executive control of the Church in 1966?
1) Of course I've heard of plausible denial, I've studied intelligence
issues for several years!
Are you saying this is Hubbard's Bay of Pigs or U2 Incident?
Get real!
There isn't even a parallel.
2)You think obviously that Hubbard was omniscient, like some kind of
god.and acting as some Svengali.
3) He resigned as Executive Director, read the policy its in OEC Volume
7.
Does it say that he gave up Administrative and Executive control?
>
> > They were signed off by either C/S 7 (Mary Sue Hubbard) or the Guardian
> > (Jane Kember), which is why the Department of Injustice couldn't get an
> > indictment on Hubbard.
>
> So, you do believe that Mary Sue Hubbard planned the whole thing, without
> her husband's knowledge and approval? And that she should take
> responsibility for it? Or are you saying that the lack of a paper trail to
> Hubbard means that he is absolved? There's no paper trail linking me to
> many of my overts. Does this mean I don't need to get them off in session?
I said I've researched the documents which clearly have her and
Kember's signature.
All you have are presumptuous assertions which may or may not be
correct based totally on assumption and leaps of logic or illogic, as
the case my be, tainted by prejudice.
>
> > Whether it was correct to run a counter intelligence operation against
> > a Government that on a daily basis was running their own (Cointelpro,
> > Chaos etc) against its citizens in contravention of the US Constitution
> > and the Bill of Rights. Is a question I leave self righteous pompous
> > moralists to decide.
>
> That's a great attitude. How does it make you right? Ever hear that two
> wrongs don't make a right? What ever happened to Clean Hands? Guess it
> should be followed by parenthetical statements (Confidential: Clean Hands
> is just a bullshit story, in reality, get dirty faster than your opponent,
> so that you can become entrapped in a games condition with him)
Like I said "I leave self righteous pompous moralists to decide".
Did I mention hypocritical as well?
>
> >> > I have no idea what scientologists in general consider evil.
> >>
> >> Domination and deceit seem against the idea of getting charge off the
> >> case
> >> and as-ising old games.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> >> > However, I do know that any one who questions Miscavige's motives or
> >> > actions, which could be considered 'High Crimes' and 'Suppressive Acts'
> >> > according to their own scriptures is either harrassed until they are
> >> > willing to conclude that 2+2 does indeed equal 5 or are ejected.
> >>
> >> Well, yes- but this was going on long before Miscavige was around.
> >>
> >> > See the case of Randy MacDonald.
> >>
> >> Wish I could. The primary documents don't seem to be available via
> >> google
> >> searches.
> >
> > I see your point.
> >
> > Must have gone down the ol' memory hole.
> >
> > Here's a link that refers to them:
> >
> > http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/rtc-boycott.htm
>
> More likely that the "primary source" made an out of court settlement with
> the Church, and is no longer publishing them, or giving permission to
> publish them to others. Echoes of Zegel.
The "Church" currently emulates the USG and works on the CYA principle.
1) No actually the veracity of the documents is the evidence required
by any legal standard on earth, unless you're from Mars.
2) That is an excellent display of intellectual equivilance.
3) Where do you get the idea that my strategy is to clear the planet?
4)"Flat out paranoid" would be these geeks who claim that OSA is under
their bed or rumaging through their trash can.
Or can only back up their assertions with nothing but conspiracy theory
on how Hubbard was an omnipotent god.
Was he also involved in the Kennedy assassination as well?
And I'm sure the fact that he's dead doesn't exclude him as the prime
suspect in 911.
The fact is Gerry Armstrong claims to have a hand written copy of
Affirmations yet has only published a transcribed copy!!!
Why is it so difficult to publish the actual copy when there are
original copies of OT III and other advance levels all over the
internet?
Is it because you have a lower standard of proof when it aligns with
your idee fixee?
>
> >> > None have been verified as authentic.
> >>
> >> Verified by who?
> >
> > By an unbiased source.
>
> Which doesn't exist.
Unbiased source would be a scientific examination of the documents to
prove their legitimacy.
Much like what was done with the MJ 12 microfiche.
> >>
> >> No. Are you asserting that Hubbard made his purpose of making money as
> >> the
> >> primary motivation for scientology's creation known to his followers? Or
> >> are you contradicting that Hubbard's primary purpose was making real
> >> money
> >> by starting his own religion? Something else?
> >
> > Neither, I am saying that the 'fact' that Hubbard went crazy is
> > unconfirmed by credible eye witnesses or substantiated unbiased reports.
>
> So, his adopting the title Commodore, and developing a paramilitary
> organization to handle off-planet, nigh immortal threats to spiritual
> freedom doesn't seem just a little crazy to you?
It's part of the Religion of Scientology and therefore part of the
belief.
So basically you are saying that just because you don't believe in the
second coming all Christians must be crazy, because many are preparing
for it.
What about the Buddhists?
Are they nutso too cause they believe in Saddartha's eventual return?
Or is it any one that doesn't agree with you must be nuts?
muldoon
"Starfire" is not stupid; yet Starfire displays stupidity.
Peculiar.
Has Starfire read the many pages of writings by L. Ron Hubbard to be
found in his confidential "Intelligence Tech" writings?
Has he seen the numerous records of covert Ops authorized by Hubbard?
We will never know for sure.
Yet, the Starfire display was entertaining.
The question remains: Does Starfire _really_ believe Starfire.
The answer: Not likely.
But thanks for the entertainment anyway, Starfire.
bb
> The fact is Gerry Armstrong claims to have a hand written copy of
> Affirmations yet has only published a transcribed copy!!!
>
> Why is it so difficult to publish the actual copy when there are
> original copies of OT III and other advance levels all over the
> internet?
My understanding is that part of the affirmations were read into the
court records,
and are thus valid court documents. RTC dosn't appear to have refuted
them.
bb
starfire
Here's an interesting story which may or not be true, lost in the
archives of ARS but worth reposting:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/4f8a6789f9d9ea74?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/ec4a389310ea2c4e?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/b1b90ea3e0934081?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/8ea20b3cae73b4d6?
I'd say the general incompetence of RTC is evident, whether it was
merely stupidty or complicity?
Decide for yourself.
Muldoon, I'm so glad you were entertained.
However, I for one do not believe the self described "critics" or the
pronouncements of the current government approved Church of
"Scientology".
My opinion is that it seems unlikely that the chain saw, sledge hammer
welding G-men who raided the Church in '77described here:
http://www.freezone.org/timetrack/data/Playing_Dirty/c07.htm
would have overlooked actual evidence implicating Hubbard or would have
omitted it from the Stipulation of "Evidence", shown here:
http://www.wwwaif.net/scn/scn_stip_index.php
Of course realize that they had "national security" issues to cover up,
mentioned here in Kress' article:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/13.1_kress.pdf
which is probably why "their" lawyers persuaded the original
Scientology 9 to plead nolo contendere, instead of have their day in
court.
I mean why let the US public in on the secret that they may be using
Scientology Technology (TM) for Intelligence purposes?
Especially since they spent so much time convincing them that it was
such a dangerous cult.
It would seem hypocritical, I guess.
Any way here's a riddle, that you can answer among yourselves, since
I'm really tired of treading the murky muddy waters of use(less)net.
What ever happened to the original OT Levels?
You know the ones that have the end phenomena of a Thetan Exterior and
able to operate out side of the body?
Something that would be useful for.....say....remote viewing.
Seems they are no longer offered by the current government approved and
certified Scientology Organization.
Probably just one of life's lil' mysteries?
Signing off....
bb
starfire wrote:
> bb wrote:
> > starfire wrote:
> > > Kevin Brady wrote:
> > > > "starfire" <sca...@spiesonline.zzn.com> wrote in message
>
> What ever happened to the original OT Levels?
>
> You know the ones that have the end phenomena of a Thetan Exterior and
> able to operate out side of the body?
>
> Something that would be useful for.....say....remote viewing.
>
> Seems they are no longer offered by the current government approved and
> certified Scientology Organization.
>
> Probably just one of life's lil' mysteries?
>
> Signing off....
Signing off! I certainly did not want or intend that. Havn@t read
your URLs yet,
but I can tell you original OT levels are alive and well in the FZ.
Or are you a churchie?
bb
Kevin Brady
Perhaps. In the absence of any OT's with such abilities that are willing to
demonstrate them, I'll just use Occam's razor and say that the reason was
they never actually were successful in producing such OTs. However, I
haven't read your referenced links, and will do so later, when I get home
from work.
Question: can you demonstrate such abilities? If not, why not? Have you
witnessed such abilities in use? If not, why do you credit their existence.
If so, can you prove it?
Kevin Brady
through the first part of the timeline. I've seen some of this information
in bits at the Veritas site, previously, but it always seemed to be a hint
at research that is much more fully explored, here.
Are you aware of the source? Who is this "Librarian"? Why did this "go
away" after 1997-8? What happened with the 198 million dollar libel suit
(or whatever it was in amount)?
Do you have copies of the "original", or "old" OT levels?
muldoon
Hubbard didn't use his much marketed "OT abilities" in his own private
Intelligence gathering and covert attack operations. Ever wonder why?
Ingo Swann was a natural psychic from the age of 5, and later described
Scientology's OT levels as disappointing, and left Scientology. Swann
had been earlier involved in the Monroe Institute, as well as exploring
others areas.
I don't buy the "SRI took over Scientology" scenario - with
*Scientology having the secrets of psychic power*. (Are you a "Captain
Bill person"?)
(If Scientology is useful to anyone, it's as a fanatical-cult, and one
that uses a lie-detector - a cute service to provide, but there are
plenty of wacky cults to exploit.)
Governments have a long history of doing many things, including
exploring the possibility of utilizing psychics of any kind - going
back pre-WW II.
Most of the interesting material of the pre-1978 "OT levels" was around
in the 1950s, and before that, much of it was around, in Occult studies
- *long* before that.
In 1965, Hubbard moved into phase two of his self-aggrandizing _money,
power, and black-mail collecting, monument-building program_, and
began, in a majorly way, to implement manipulative and coercive ideas
and practices - ideas and practices that he couldn't resist discreetly
blending into his 1955 hoax "Russian Textbook on Brainwashing."
Hubbard soon became the Commodore, invented Xenu and "OT 3," officially
making all Scientologists, per his original definition, "PTS #3," and,
in general, "goofed the floof," on everyone.
(Remember, he - "nothing up my sleeve"-style - would describe dark
actions, as having been done *by others*, and then, himself, do those
same actions covertly to others, including his own trusting followers.)
If Scientology started going downhill, a more realistic date is 1965.
And, by the way, Hubbard, an unindicted co-conspirator, carefully
arranged his private Intelligence operation so as to escape
culpability. And, Mary Sue, after meeting with Hubbard one last time,
and, in all likelihood, having her own children used by her husband as
bargaining chips - just as Hubbard had earlier done with 2nd
(non-person) wife, Sara, and their (non-person) daughter, Lexi - *Mary
Sue took the rap* for her husband.
Hubbard was guilty as hell and you know it. And your evasion of my
citing of his extensive confidential "Intelligence tech" writings is
noted.
muldoon
> and practices - ideas and practices that he couldn't resist discreetly
> blending into his 1955 hoax "Russian Textbook on Brainwashing."
>
> Hubbard soon became the Commodore, invented Xenu and "OT 3," officially
> making all Scientologists, per his original definition, "PTS #3," and,
> in general, "goofed the floof," on everyone.
>
> (Remember, he - "nothing up my sleeve"-style - would describe dark
> actions, as having been done *by others*, and then, himself, do those
> same actions covertly to others, including his own trusting followers.)
>
> If Scientology started going downhill, a more realistic date is 1965.
>
> And, by the way, Hubbard, an unindicted co-conspirator, carefully
> arranged his private Intelligence operation so as to escape
> culpability. And, Mary Sue, after meeting with Hubbard one last time,
> and, in all likelihood, having her own children used by her husband as
> bargaining chips - just as Hubbard had earlier done with 2nd
> (non-person) wife, Sara, and their (non-person) daughter, Lexi - *Mary
> Sue took the rap* for her husband.
>
> Hubbard was guilty as hell and you know it. And your evasion of my
> citing of his extensive confidential "Intelligence tech" writings is
> noted.
And just looked over your links.
I spoke with Ingo Swann in New York City in November 1972, and he was -
openly - a member of Scientology. His pending involvement with SRI was
also public knowledge, and SRI's governmental connection was hardly a
secret.
So, *while this is (and has always been) very interesting*, it's not
the *big secret* now exposed.
But there is plenty of *secrecy* to go around.
Hubbard, per his own words, in the 'Bolivar PL', wrote that Scientology
should function as a "tight conspiracy." And, although this was not a
confidential issue, I've no doubt that Hubbard took this bit of policy
very seriously.
Ultimately, I don't think Hubbard much cared who ran Scientology in the
long run, as long as it functioned, also, as his own ego-glorification
society.
(That was the "real goal," going back to, at least, 1938.)
He set it up - in various ways - to make sure that would happen.
The more benign "mental-healing" part of the subject, while I do think
it has some innovative and worthwhile aspects, was, after all, per
Hubbard's design, simply part of the facade.
You seem to believe that the facade was *IT* - well, it wasn't, and
isn't.
And, maybe, it's about time for you to figure that out.
ph...@philscott.net
Kevin Brady wrote:
>
> Not really. And I'm sorry for coming off confrontationally, I've had a bug
> in my rug the last few days. The question is a serious one. Because
> scientologists ostensibly follow the Code of a Scientologist,
You are a moron, do you know that Kevin?
Phil Scott
Kevin Brady
news:1153894279.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The question of whether *anyone* was ever psychic is not one that will
likely be settled here, nevermind telekinetic. My personal belief is that
we ALL are, but that there are so many of us, and this ability is inherent
to all living things, that as individuals, the effect is minimal. Perhaps
it could be amplified, slightly, through exercises such as the old OT Levels
or SOP8C, etc. But to have "strong powerz" in the shared universe, we'd
have to overcome all other beings ability to intend, and bend them to our
personal will... And that's mighty left-handed.
Of course, that's kind of a side-show compared to the documentation of the
way the Church was co-opted by tax attorneys, and likely government agents.
Why would the government want it? Perhaps as a money-laundering outfit:
that smacks more true to me than a desire for OT-powered agents, or
markabian invasion.
At any rate, I view all of that business as "the playing of the game". I'm
much more interested in helping people understand their conditions and
improve them than I am in such games, even if my clientele are measuring
their own success by playing such games. Eventually, it is my faith (and
yes, I do have faith) that they will come out the other side, and realize
that the games are all just games, no matter how big the scale. I hope they
have fun playing, and don't hurt anyone, but what I believe is that
eventually, they'll just cease opposing others, learn how to help using
clearing techniques, and bring others to the same sort of serenity, and that
our society will become a better place as the individuals that comprise it
improve.
Evolution, not revolution. Individual awareness, not social or corporate
control. And while I find the intrigue fascinating, I don't want a part of
it.
Gerry Armstrong
<sca...@spiesonline.zzn.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>The fact is Gerry Armstrong claims to have a hand written copy of
>Affirmations yet has only published a transcribed copy!!!
You've made a factual assertion here. It's false.
Because you're clearly a clam cultist, or clam cult collaborator, this
is not an insignificant false assertion. So I'm challenging you on it.
Provide your evidence that I claim to have a hand written copy of
Hubbard's Affirmations, or Admissions. Or please acknowledge that you
are wrong.
>
>Why is it so difficult to publish the actual copy when there are
>original copies of OT III and other advance levels all over the
>internet?
>
>Is it because you have a lower standard of proof when it aligns with
>your idee fixee?
You have a much greater opportunity than the Scientology cult's actual
opponents to publish Hubbard's Affirmations. Get the clams together to
pressure cult head Miscavige to publish them, After all, the
Affirmations, or Admissions, are a key part of Scientology scripture,
which has been instrumental in many meaningful cognitions by all sorts
of Scientologists or ex-Scientologists, and DM is suppressing this
information for all Scientologists.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Gerry Armstrong
<sca...@spiesonline.zzn.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>I question the provenance of Armstrong's documents.
You question Hubbard? I just bet.
>
>None have been verified as authentic.
What a load!
Why don't you tell the truth? F
You're a Scientologist. LFBD F/N
But you've made the factual assertion (which here is black PR) so it's
up to you to prove or support it.
What evidence do you have that none of my documents have been verified
as authentic?
Please start with my documents webbed on my web site:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Just list here every document on the site. Then show all the sources
you checked for each document to verify that it has never been
verified as authentic.
>
>Including Affirmations which we are told is written in Hubbard's own
>hand yet all you can obtain on the internet is a poorly transcribed
>printed copy.
>
>http://www.lermanet.com/reference/Admissions.pdf
David Miscavige has the original he can give you to check against the
"transcribed printed copy" to see if it's actually poor or not.
In fact, the only way you could possibly honestly come to the
conclusion that the "transcribed printed copy" is "poorly transcribed"
is if you already have an accurate handwritten copy against which to
side check the "transcribed printed copy."
So now that everyone knows this, would you please correct any errors
in the "transcribed printed copy" that render it in your evaluation
"poorly transcribed," and then post all such errors you find and
corrections you make.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Homer Wilson Smith
>"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write
>that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can
>control anybody is to lie to them."
Probably true.
Great wisdom.
>Its fair to say that 'auditing' is being opposed because it perpetuates
>Hubbards 'reality' and Modern Medicine wouldnt didnt have a bar of it
>in the 50's and certainly show no interest 50 years later. Why is that
>Homer? maybe many people now realise that the 'contagion' Hubbard wrote
>about in DMSMH is actually what Scientology and Dianetics will spread.
My view is that most educated meatballs, doctors iocluded,
including their patients, are at disassociation on the awareness
characteristic chart, thus they have no idea why people get sick, or
need eyeglasses etc.
Their excuse is 'its genetic, runs in the family etc'.
Sometimes that may even be true.
But frankly talking to the doctors who are more aware than
others, even they tell me most of medicine is blind to real causes.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>QUOTE>Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the
>power to make you commit injustices<UNQUOTE.
>Voltaire
Very true. However one man's absurdities, is another man's
cathedral.
Homer
Michael Pattinson
Good valid points Gerry,
We shall see the respondant's integrity on this, or not.
Michael Pattinson
Homer Wilson Smith
>> - L. Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952, excerpted
>> in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL VOLUMES OF
>> DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418
>If he was going to use this as a method of controlling people he would
>advertise it?
Not to make you wrong, but yes. I believe Hubbard taught best
what he most needed to learn, and he knew early on it was going to be
impossible to live up to his own words, so he wanted to make sure
those words were written so that other's could see what was happening
to Hubbard when it happened.
The whole tech is a cry for help and message saying "I am about
to go insane, please audit me before I do, here's how." But nobody
did, although some tried.
For a Church whose Grade 0 is the ability to comm on any subject
with any person, it has more non communicators by policy than any
other square foot in existence except maybe behind the iron curtain.
Each Grade of the grade chart is an indictment of what the Church
as a whole BY POLICY is not, so its a creation of Hubbard's case pure
and simple.
Its like he knew what case was, and wrote it all down, but could
not control it even in himself, and thus created the church as proof
that he had a case too.
I know that's nuts, but I see the guy just like me, I can write
up a real storm, but living by it is a different story.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
by agreeing with it, except perhaps to make the opposition look
SO crazy that no one would believe them any more.
a.r.s. seems to be full of people being called OSA BECAUSE
they attack the Church.
I find this nuts if true, and more nuts of the people who
believe it is true.
People assert a lot of attribution of intention, most of
it is nuts.
Homer
>alex.
--
Kevin Brady
can be isolated, and treated with strictly a medicinal regimen, with a
positive outcome. This doesn't mean medicine isn't necessary, it means it
is not sufficient in many cases, and not required in others.
--
Kevin G. Brady
It's not about me.
"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms."
- Socrates (470-399 B.C.)
http://www.myspace.com/clear_objectives
http://www.tir.org
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/sands.htm
http://www.futurepsychiatry.com
"Homer Wilson Smith" <ro...@adore.lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:2006072700...@adore.lightlink.com...
Kevin Brady
I think you are very right, Homer. Of course, others made contributions,
cleaned it up, etc. One theory that is derived from somewhere in the tech
(I lost my reference librarian hat) is that our interest is attracted to
subjects that we have charge connected to (where we can confront that
charge: where it is overwhelming, we pretend it doesn't exist or run
screaming).
thorazine shuffle
"Alex" <al...@null.edu> wrote in message
news:alex-DE409A.1...@news.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <v13gc2l6iva52avur...@4ax.com>,
>
> Alex
"Alex", playing the part of the "rational scientologist", feels this topic
is droll.
Duly noted, "Alex".
--
Websites the "church" hopes you won't look at:
www.xenu.net
www.xenutv.com
www.lermanet.com
www.torymagoo.org
www.silentology.com
"Fuck L. Ron Hubbard, and fuck all his clones." -Tool
Homer Wilson Smith
>Yes, medicine is largely about managing symptoms. It's rare that a "cause"
>can be isolated, and treated with strictly a medicinal regimen, with a
>positive outcome. This doesn't mean medicine isn't necessary, it means it
>is not sufficient in many cases, and not required in others.
Adore says there are 4 planes to existence, body, heart, mind
and soul. Physical, emotional, mental and spiritaul.
Medicine treats of the physical but not the other 3. Since 'dis
ease' trickles downwards, much physical sickness and disability arises
from problems in the upper 3 planes. Drugs help but do not cure.
Adore says, "Cancerous views of reality lead to cancerous
conditions in body, heart mind and soul. So much for medicine."
Run with "What like a cancer grows in your universe?"
But adore also says of doctors:
"As for doctors,
Doctors maintain their stability by walking into the center of
hell and looking there for the few they can help.
I love doctors forever for free, for they walk the battle fields.
Not in agreement with fools and assholes, but in sympathy yet,
for the call of pain knows not the distinction of worth." - Adore
Homer
>--
>Kevin G. Brady
>It's not about me.
>"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms."
>- Socrates (470-399 B.C.)
>http://www.myspace.com/clear_objectives
>http://www.tir.org
>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
>http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/sands.htm
>http://www.futurepsychiatry.com
>"Homer Wilson Smith" <ro...@adore.lightlink.com> wrote in message
>news:2006072700...@adore.lightlink.com...
>> Alert (flickin...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>>>"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write
>>>that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can
>>>control anybody is to lie to them."
>>
>> Probably true.
>>
>> Great wisdom.
>>
>>>Its fair to say that 'auditing' is being opposed because it perpetuates
>>>Hubbards 'reality' and Modern Medicine wouldnt didnt have a bar of it
>>>in the 50's and certainly show no interest 50 years later. Why is that
>>>Homer? maybe many people now realise that the 'contagion' Hubbard wrote
>>>about in DMSMH is actually what Scientology and Dianetics will spread.
>>
>> My view is that most educated meatballs, doctors iocluded,
>> including their patients, are at disassociation on the awareness
>> characteristic chart, thus they have no idea why people get sick, or
>> need eyeglasses etc.
>>
>> Their excuse is 'its genetic, runs in the family etc'.
>>
>> Sometimes that may even be true.
>>
>> But frankly talking to the doctors who are more aware than
>> others, even they tell me most of medicine is blind to real causes.
>>
>> Homer
>>
--
ho...@lightlink.com
Kevin Brady (gomo...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>Yes, medicine is largely about managing symptoms. It's rare that a "cause"
>can be isolated, and treated with strictly a medicinal regimen, with a
>positive outcome. This doesn't mean medicine isn't necessary, it means it
>is not sufficient in many cases, and not required in others.
Adore says there are 4 planes to existence, body, heart, mind and
soul. Physical, emotional, mental and spiritual.
Medicine treats of the physical but not the other 3. Since 'dis
ease' trickles downwards, much physical sickness and disability arises
from problems in the upper 3 planes. Drugs help but do not cure.
Adore says, "Cancerous views of reality lead to cancerous
conditions in body, heart mind and soul. So much for medicine."
Run with "What like a cancer grows in your universe?"
But adore also says of doctors:
"As for doctors,
Doctors maintain their stability by walking into the center of
hell and looking there for the few they can help.
I love doctors forever for free, for they walk the battle fields.
Not in agreement with fools and assholes, but in sympathy yet,
for the call of pain knows not the distinction of worth." - Adore
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Wed Jul 26 23:13:14 EDT 2006
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore355.memo
Send mail to arc...@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBRMgvSj4RxM7qO/z1AQGPoQIAlxBhy6TZXWDWkhe5QLpRSceNw67ZqN2C
y7AIbMypVKLWxbwEe77OWp3EA3cTr5U4PMUnQDujS8mdQhPvReIhng==
=RPe4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
barbz
> In article <v13gc2l6iva52avur...@4ax.com>,
> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>
>
> Droll
>
> Alex
...not glib?
--
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
xenu...@netscape.net
I am being defamed and forged here
Gerry Armstrong wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2006 00:30:58 -0700, "starfire"
> <sca...@spiesonline.zzn.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >The fact is Gerry Armstrong claims to have a hand written copy of
> >Affirmations yet has only published a transcribed copy!!!
>
> You've made a factual assertion here. It's false.
You are defaming L. Ron Hubbard as usually, Gerry. How do you call
that? "We don't have to prove one damn thing, we just allege."
He didn't write these "affirmations". Perhaps it was you or your
psychiatric case officer who write them. Read this about L. Ron
Hubbard.
http://www.thunderstar.net/~schwarz/lrh/fbidocs.html
--
Barbara Schwarz (Looking for the original Mark [Marty] Rathbun. No
impostor, please!)
http://www.thunderstar.net/~schwarz/lrh/fbidocs.html
--
(I am concerned about Dave Touretzky's activities.)
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
Read the pages on terrorist-friendly Andreas Heldal-Lund (arrested for
harassment):
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/lund/Lund04.html
Wikkpedia defamation scribbler and pro eugenics Tilman Joerg Hausherr,
linked to the fanatical German secret service OPC, wants to hurt
American tourism.
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/_vti_bin/shtml.dll/search.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/8962a9830812112f?hl=en&
>
Kevin Brady
> In article <6GVxg.958$TV....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
>
> Its fun to watch an ignorant fool up against some one who was there and
> still seems to have vestiges of a sense of humour about it, albeit a bit
> understated.
>
> alex
"Thorazine" is good at misduplicating what has been said, seeing instead
distortions, emphasis that wasn't there, statements that were not made, and
misses what was actually said. That's part of his shuffle. He continuously
misunderstood me and HE&R'd at me to the point where I KFd him, rather than
constantly correcting him. Unless you mean him ill, I'd suggest
disengaging, as he will only use what you say to him in a way to inflame
himself and attack you. You got a life preserver?
thorazine shuffle
"Kevin Brady" <gomo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44c83702$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
"misduplicating"? Are you fucking kidding me? Did you really just say that?
Priceless.
I have never misunderstood you, Kevin. Your problem is quite obvious to
everyone but those that are still in, or those still trying to deny that the
entire thing was a waste.
You know as well as I do that you never KF'd me, and I'd love to see where
you corrected me. I dare ya.
I have no doubt that you'd suggest "disengaging" from me. It's the safe
route. Why be made a fool of when one can simply "disengage"?
muldoon
Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
> I have never understood the tactic of undermining opposition
> by agreeing with it, except perhaps to make the opposition look
> SO crazy that no one would believe them any more.
>
It's something like that, although a little more complicated at times.
See, you understand at least something of *tactics* after all.
I said you were making progress.
> a.r.s. seems to be full of people being called OSA BECAUSE
> they attack the Church.
>
No, it not "full." That's your dub in.
> I find this nuts if true, and more nuts of the people who
> believe it is true.
>
> People assert a lot of attribution of intention, most of
> it is nuts.
>
> Homer
>
Now, you're blabbering again. Oh well.
-snip-
roger gonnet
"Gerry Armstrong" <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> a écrit dans le message de news:
v13gc2l6iva52avur...@4ax.com...
They don't challenge these documents for very easy to understand reasons:
1.they are authentic,
2. if they challenged them publicly (before courts) that would force them to ask
to make them public
3. the true cause why they attack your "admissions" here is that they would like
to know how you got the copy so as to attack (attack attack never defend) the
person responsible of having sent that copy to you.
Since these idiots are loosers; they can"t win on any point, so, they tried
their own usual ways: hypocrite allegations, libelous attacks etc.
How scientologist, how turdish.
r