"Thoughtful" (Steve Hall) discusses OT III vis a vis Hubbard's "Revolt in the Stars" film script
Eldon
http://www.scientology-cult.com/revolt-in-the-stars.html
STEVE SEZ:
But first, a non-confidential word about OT III. In this article, I am
not making a comment upon the veracity of the incident LRH describes
in the script. There are three solid reasons for that: (1) Scientology
is not a belief system. (2) Scientology is not a belief system. (3)
See point number 1.
LRH never required anyone to believe anything in Scientology. No one
is required to believe that the events described in Revolt in the
Stars actually happened.
It’s like pouring water out of a glass. Belief just has nothing to do
with it. Scientology is the same way. Unfortunately even some
Scientologists don’t know that.
However I do believe a further clarification is in order. Among anti-
Scientologists there are misconceptions regarding the OT III
information. They don't have any experience with these materials.
In RJ-67 LRH said the materials were rigged to kill anyone who
discovered their exact truth. Some critics assume since they read the
materials and didn't die, it's all bunk. Well, technically speaking,
no one is going to die from reading the materials.
"Reading the materials" is not the same thing as running the materials
incorrectly. In general, the populace is protected by the fact that
their awareness it too low in the first place to be in any danger from
these materials.
-----
Steve goes on to quote a letter from LRH that explains the underlying
strategy for the movie.
----
"The RTS (Revolt in the Stars) film is designed to make several things
occur on planet earth. Firstly, it will re-create the events
surrounding a 4th Dynamic engram which affected this Sector circa 75
million years ago. However, it will present the data in a way which
releases charge and brings up awareness and confront.
"No one has really confronted the original incident and survived -
until the research I did in 1966-1967.
"Secondly, it will contain several symbols of the time, many still
existing in PT on or off planet, which will create a familiarity and
positioning of these symbols for our use - the good guys wear the
white hats, bad guys the black hats, etc. - as per early Hollywood
symbolism.
"A wide field of PR activities will at once open up and present itself
for use based on the symbols in the film and the results of surveys
afterwards. We should be prepared for this. Proper positioning tech
would be used in any cover business, corporation, etc., to increase
alignment with the mental and spiritual vectors thus developed.
"Thirdly, the film itself is to be viable, allowing a wide range of
follow-up items and literature and a thrust from the public to be
developed which can be channeled toward the orgs.
"Most importantly, since the events portrayed are true, there will be
a degree of as-isness of the interlocking bank structure on the
planet, thus making our job a bit easier.
"Any OT project being developed or in progress is to be made aware of
these points in regard to RTS.
"L.Ron Hubbard
Founder"
-----
Gee, too bad the flick never got produced. Too bad Battlefield Earth
didn't do the trick either.
Astrid
I see. All very sighuntiffick. It's not about belief! It's about
"knowingness," and certainty isn't it? And you have to "run" this
cockamamie in order to get pneumonia and die from this, and Steve has
seen this with his own two eyes.
Great! Now, they give any would-be Scientologists the OTIII materials
to look over, before they join crazy cult.
How do you "run" a DC8 replica? Is there any intercourse with Xenu
involved in running him?
I think L. Ron's spaceship landed on Steve's head.
rhill
> Is this convoluted double-talk, or is it just me?
>
> http://www.scientology-cult.com/revolt-in-the-stars.html
>
> STEVE SEZ:
> But first, a non-confidential word about OT III. In this article, I am
> not making a comment upon the veracity of the incident LRH describes
> in the script. There are three solid reasons for that: (1) Scientology
> is not a belief system. (2) Scientology is not a belief system. (3)
> See point number 1.
>
> LRH never required anyone to believe anything in Scientology. No one
> is required to believe that the events described in Revolt in the
> Stars actually happened.
Hubbard required his deluded followers to believe that whoever doesn't
experience gain from Scientology is a "Suppressive Person" (or connected
to one.)
Astrid
>
> > LRH never required anyone to believe anything in Scientology. No one
> > is required to believe that the events described in Revolt in the
> > Stars actually happened.
>
> Hubbard required his deluded followers to believe that whoever doesn't
> experience gain from Scientology is a "Suppressive Person" (or connected
> to one.)
It is frustrating when Scientologists make these hair-splitting
distinctions between "belief" and "knowing" or accepting a concept.
It is self-deception to think (or believe) there is a big distinction
in finding out what is true for you, a la Ron, and BELIEVING it.
Scilons think (or believe) that this is profound on the part of Ron
tech. I just see it as part of the trap. A trick. A deception.
After all, getting involved in this cult, is predicated on a BELIEF
that it can or might help you, and that Hubbard had answers. But it
gets much worse. Members get brainwashed into believing Hubbard had
ALL the answers. That this MUST spread around the world and universe.
That wogs are hypnotized and clueless. Only Scilons know.
The "finding what is true for you" becomes an elaborate trap or game.
So, "LRH never required anyone to believe anything in
Scientology" (Steve Hall says), is overlooking the fact that the
moment you doubt, question, or contradict Ron's ideas, you are
punished, corrected, threatened with expulsion from eternity, told you
are suppressive or bilked for more money for processing.
I say Ron required that you believe EVERYTHING in Scientology or you'd
damned well better shut up about it, if you didn't want to be punished
or disconnected.
That's why people like Tory feel such a release when leaving the cult.
They are free to think anything, again, without worry that it is
improper or will come up in a session for which they will be punished.
And I agree the SP concept is at the root of all the totalitarian
control, the opposite of freedom. It is extended in that one of the
worst infractions in crazy cult, is "bad thoughts about Hubbard." Pair
that with the concept of a "misunderstood" and you have a very nutty,
controlling system.
Is it scary to deal with the problems in the world as an adult,
accepting there are no simple answers to difficult problems. For
example, I think Christ (or his followers) came up with a good idea to
end war, by loving your enemies, or putting love and forgiveness above
conflict and killing, yet it hasn't worked too well.
As far as Hubbard goes, with his blaming the "evil psychs"....well,
that is just insane!
Hartley Patterson
It's quite straight forward, except that it includes the false assumption
that Source is self-consistent.
> But first, a non-confidential word about OT III. In this article, I am
> not making a comment upon the veracity of the incident LRH describes
> in the script. There are three solid reasons for that: (1) Scientology
> is not a belief system.
That's like 'there is no Reincarnation in Scientology', or indeed 'there
are 10 million Scientologists". They are true, for a certain value of
Truth.
> However I do believe a further clarification is in order. Among anti-
> Scientologists there are misconceptions regarding the OT III
> information.
That's certainly true.
> "Most importantly, since the events portrayed are true, there will be
> a degree of as-isness of the interlocking bank structure on the
> planet, thus making our job a bit easier.
Ron stole this idea - surprise! - from the conspiracy theory that says
movies about flying saucers are made with Federal Government Money to get
the public used to the concept of aliens, so they won't be so scared when
they reveal themselves.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
Lawrence
"Astrid" <Astrid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3311f172-035b-4fd0...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 15, 8:27� am, Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Is this convoluted double-talk, or is it just me?
>>
>> http://www.scientology-cult.com/revolt-in-the-stars.html
>>
>> STEVE SEZ:
>> But first, a non-confidential word about OT III. In this article, I am
>> not making a comment upon the veracity of the incident LRH describes
>> in the script. There are three solid reasons for that: (1) Scientology
>> is not a belief system. (2) Scientology is not a belief system. (3)
>> See point number 1.
>>
>> LRH never required anyone to believe anything in Scientology. No one
>> is required to believe that the events described in Revolt in the
>> Stars actually happened.
>>
>> with it. Scientology is the same way. Unfortunately even some
>> Founder"
>> -----
>>
>> Gee, too bad the flick never got produced. Too bad Battlefield Earth
>> didn't do the trick either.
>
> I see. All very sighuntiffick. It's not about belief! It's about
> "knowingness," and certainty isn't it? And you have to "run" this
> cockamamie in order to get pneumonia and die from this, and Steve has
> seen this with his own two eyes.
>
> Great! Now, they give any would-be Scientologists the OTIII materials
> to look over, before they join crazy cult.
>
> How do you "run" a DC8 replica? Is there any intercourse with Xenu
> involved in running him?
>
> I think L. Ron's spaceship landed on Steve's head.
I am hoping that if anyone YOU will see the light.
It says right here on Steve Halls website:
http://www.scientology-cult.com/videos/steve-hall-videos/steve-hall-biography.html
"In addition, he's taking effective action to improve conditions in
Scientology.
As he explains, "Sea Org members are indeed tough and I hope I'm a good
example of that. But toughness doesn't mean taking abuse, covering up or
condoning criminality. It means doing what's right."
Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not more aberrated than actually
being
in Scientology itself? What is he now the "Police Officer of the Good"?
I just can't side with that as a valid anything.
One gets out of a religion that one then publicly supports.
Some of these people from the cult are crazier than even I originally
anticipated.
--
Read "The Diary Of A Scientologist"
http://mysite.verizon.net/toomajan/
Larry
Zinj
From Keeping Scientology Working:
One: Having the correct technology.
Two: Knowing the technology.
Three: Knowing it is correct.
Three is achieved by the individual applying the correct technology
in a proper manner and observing that it works that way.
If you do *not* observe that it works this way, you did it wrong; report
to Ethics.
Zinj