ANTI-SCIENTOLOGY MYTH #326: Scientology Advocates Genocide!
Theta
******** INTOLERANCE ONLINE ********
Decoding Anti-Scientology Propaganda
http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk
====================================
"The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people
from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with
as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the
handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of
which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to
their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the
tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the
three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and
without sorrow." L. Ron Hubbard, from Science of Survival.
"I am shocked. Reading [this] makes me sick! How can anyone possibly
defend such crap? Is it a misquote? If it is true, how can you follow
such insanity?" LilAlex742, from alt.religion.scientology
<19971113034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Yes, this is a Hubbard quote. On its own, it reads like an advocation
of genocide - a claim made by many Scientology critics on the web and
on the usenet group alt.religion.scientology. Why would any religious
group teach such a thing? And what kind of person was Hubbard to have
written this in the first place? Such questions, of course, open the
way for much criticism and hostility towards Scientology.
Such claims are simply ridiculous and offensive, based only on
ignorance of Scientology teachings.
The quote comes from the book Science of Survival, a training book for
Scientology practitioners (Auditors). In it, Hubbard goes into great
detail on human emotions, and presents, what he called, the Tone
Scale. (A scale which shows the emotional tones that one can
experience throughout one's life, ranging from highest to lowest).
e.g.
40.0 - Serenity +
4.0 - Enthusiasm
3.0 - Conservatism
2.5 - Boredom
2.0 - Antagonism
1.5 - Anger
1.1 - Covert hostility
1.0 - Fear
0.5 - Grief
0.05 - Apathy -
To view the Tone Scale in full, visit:
http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/full.htm
When Hubbard talks of "people from 2.0 down" being hard to reason with
he is referring to those at and below 2.0 on the Tone Scale, ie. those
who are antagonistic, or angry, or who are secretly hostile to others,
etc.
Science of Survival helps practitioners raise people on the Tone
Scale, up into the higher brackets and thus helping them to become
happier and more joyful. The three methods outlined are:
1) Education - learning the tools and knowledge necessary to improve
oneself and conditions in life.
2) Change in environment - move out of a hostile or antagonistic
environment and into an environment that is more positive and higher
toned.
3) Auditing - receive Scientology counselling which frees up more of
one's own natural, positive energy, enabling one to be happier and
more able in life.
These are known as the three valid processes which Hubbard mentions in
the above quotation. These processes are used by Auditors on their
clients to help them achieve heightened states of being.
However, a very small percentage of people who are stuck, chronically,
in the lower bands on the Tone Scale do not respond to the three
processes, and does not make much, if any, gain in Scientology as a
whole. Such individuals (see
http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk/quotes.htm) often exert negative,
oppressive influences on others and tend to be destructive in nature.
Such an individual would be taken off services (which would be
refunded) and routed-out of Scientology.
"Our policy is we don't waste time on them. To cater to them is to
betray 90% of the population. So we set them aside for another day. We
get them offlines, out of orgs and to one side." L. Ron Hubbard, from
HCO PL 16 Oct 1967, SUPPRESSIVES & THE ADMINISTRATOR
In this fashion, they are indeed disposed of quietly and without
sorrow.
Those who have no knowledge of Auditing policy, and Church structure
as a whole, are quick to misinterpret these words of Hubbard's.
Unfortunately, when these misinterpretations are propagated to others
as fact, hysteria and intolerance can, and do, occur.
====================================
******** INTOLERANCE ONLINE ********
Decoding Anti-Scientology Propaganda
http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk
====================================
MABosnos
The key phrase in your post was "...what kind of person was Hubbard...?" That
is an important question for anyone considering whether to become (or remain) a
Scientologist.. I would suggest looking at a broad spectum of information on
LRH, rather than simply relying on official Church of Scientology biographies.
A good place to start might be with Jon Atack's book, "A Piece of Blue Sky,"
which can be ordered from bookstores and is also available on xenu.net (at the
bottom of the homepage).
~~~ Mary Ann
Chris Leithiser
<snip pseudoscientific drivel by bigamist, drug-abusing L. Ron Hubbard>
Hubbard follows the above quote with an approving parable about a
fictional South American dictator who, seeking to wipe out those
afflicted with leprosy in his country, kills the much larger group of
beggars in order to be sure of removing the smaller group of lepers
contained within.
Yes, context is important. Hubbard approved of wholesales slaughter as
long as you achieved your objective.
Roland
back for further Scientology services?
Perhaps "gassing the Jews" meant talking to them excessively.
--
Clear Cognition: "I am mocking up my own reactive mind"
OT8 cognition: "Now I know who I am NOT and am
interested in finding out who I am"
"Theta" <th...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:18e81488.02010...@posting.google.com...
Chris Leithiser
>
> So "disposing of them quietly and without sorrow" means not inviting them
> back for further Scientology services?
>
> Perhaps "gassing the Jews" meant talking to them excessively.
>
Hubbard: Consider the lepers of the street, and murder them.
(The flaw is "Theta's" argument is, of course, that $cientology cannot
simply ignore its critics, for they are far stronger than $cientology
itself. If there were any truth to Theta's claim,
the-policy-formerly-known-as-Fair-Game would not exist today.)
Lovecraftian2001
>betray 90% of the population."
I'm seriously interested in what Hubbard meant by '90% of the population'.
Being a spiritual leader, of course, he's probably speaking on some asstral
level which is beyond my reasoning. But I would like clarification. Is he
referring to the 90% of the global population that has nothing to do with
Scientology? Seems to me, they could care less who joins an org or not.
Perhaps he is referring to the 90% of the population of the United States only?
In this case, the above argument is still valid. Or is he talking about the
90% of the population; that is, the only people Scientology truly considers
important enough to include in the 'population'...Scientologists themselves?
In which case, who are the 10% that wouldn't be betrayed? If they are also
people who have a less than a 3.0 tone, isn't this a tacit admission that
Scientology has been comprimised?
Ah well, enough on that. How about this:
>We
>get them offlines, out of orgs and to one side.
Obviously this is the second half of the above quoted message by Mr. Hubbard.
Again, he is talking about people who have (in Scientology's opinion) fallen
below a 3.0 CPA (Clam-Point Average).
Bear in mind that this quote from Hubbard came from
>HCO PL 16 Oct 1967, SUPPRESSIVES & THE ADMINISTRATOR
Thus, we can draw a logical conclusion that somehow people who are fallen below
the approved CPA are considered at least in the same category as
'suppressives'.
The next step in our train of logic is to ask why Scientology bothers with SPs
at all. Constant or occassional harassment, letters to neighbors, phone calls
to families, 'handlers' at pickets and so forth are inconsistent and
contradictory, if indeed
>Our policy is we don't waste time on them.
Scientology does indeed spend an awful lot of time not-wasting-time on SPs.
There are many more inconsistencies of course, but I feel that overloading a
potential answerer is in bad form. So, I will wait for the above points to be
clarified first.
Ciao,
-Joshua Korosi
Hartley Patterson
> "The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people
> from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with
> as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the
> handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of
> which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to
> their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the
> tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the
> three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and
> without sorrow." L. Ron Hubbard, from Science of Survival.
I'm afraid this sounds too much like Christians trying to rationalise
away illiberal passages in the Bible.
> Why would any religious
> group teach such a thing?
Er, they don't. Like other religious organisations, the CoS ignores
things its founder said that are inconvenient, embarrassing or out of
date.
> And what kind of person was Hubbard to have
> written this in the first place?
A fraud who didn't believe most of what he wrote!
> Such questions, of course, open the
> way for much criticism and hostility towards Scientology.
>
> Such claims are simply ridiculous and offensive, based only on
> ignorance of Scientology teachings.
Such claims are amusing, particularly when you can get CoS spokespersons
for the CoS to agree with them on camera. Remember Mike Rinder admitting
that he thought anyone who criticised his Church was a criminal? Ron
said so...
> To view the Tone Scale in full, visit:
> http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/full.htm
Oo - a better version! Must change link on my website!!
--
"I think of my beautiful city in flames"
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
A medieval spreadsheet, enturbulating entheta and how to outrun
Thread. PGP ID 0xC27CDDDC
Chris Leithiser
>
> Theta:
>
> > "The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people
> > from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with
> > as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the
> > handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of
> > which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to
> > their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the
> > tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the
> > three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and
> > without sorrow." L. Ron Hubbard, from Science of Survival.
>
> I'm afraid this sounds too much like Christians trying to rationalise
> away illiberal passages in the Bible.
True. But though "Theta" conveniently snips Ron's helpful example of
"disposal," the original text still exists and can be cited.
> > Why would any religious
> > group teach such a thing?
>
> Er, they don't. Like other religious organisations, the CoS ignores
> things its founder said that are inconvenient, embarrassing or out of
> date.
Unfortunately for them, $cientologists follow someone whose life was
fairly well-documented. They don't have the advantage of obscurity.
From now on, religious founders will have to practice what they preach.
<snip>
> > To view the Tone Scale in full, visit:
> > http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/full.htm
>
> Oo - a better version! Must change link on my website!!
Can't be all that much "better." They still left off "Love" and
"Compassion." But at least there's that cute drawing of Miscavige down
at -40.0.
Jommy Cross
<18e81488.02010...@posting.google.com>:
Thanks for raising one of the fundamental issues, Theta.
<snip>
>"The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people
>from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with
>as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the
>handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of
>which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to
>their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the
>tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the
>three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and
>without sorrow." L. Ron Hubbard, from Science of Survival.
>
<snip>
>"I am shocked. Reading [this] makes me sick! How can anyone possibly
>defend such crap? Is it a misquote? If it is true, how can you follow
>such insanity?" LilAlex742, from alt.religion.scientology
><19971113034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>
>Yes, this is a Hubbard quote. On its own, it reads like an advocation
>of genocide - a claim made by many Scientology critics on the web and
>on the usenet group alt.religion.scientology. Why would any religious
>group teach such a thing? And what kind of person was Hubbard to have
>written this in the first place?
Good questions, Theta.
> Such questions, of course, open the
>way for much criticism and hostility towards Scientology.
That and the behavior of Co$. You said last year you wouldn't support Co$
if you thought they were acting unethically. I asked you about the Bonnie
Woods case. You didn't answer.
>
>Such claims are simply ridiculous and offensive, based only on
>ignorance of Scientology teachings.
No, the claims are not ridiculous and offensive. DMSMH, Science of
Survival, History of Man, 8008, and the rest of it are full of such
totalitarian ravings. Would you like the quotes, Theta?
Hubbard's statement is ridiculous and offensive in the context of Science
of Survival and out of it.
The questions remain good questions. How will you answer them?
<snip 'Tone Scale'>
Oh, *that* answer. Suppose I'm a 1.1, Mike, um, Theta. I have the status of
a Venezualan leper with your 'church'. I am supposed to be incapable of
reason. You wonder why that leads to criticism?
>
>Those who have no knowledge of Auditing policy, and Church structure
>as a whole, are quick to misinterpret these words of Hubbard's.
>Unfortunately, when these misinterpretations are propagated to others
>as fact, hysteria and intolerance can, and do, occur.
>
It's a fact that's what L Ron Hubbard wrote, isn't it? You are defending
the indefensible. LilAlex742 was right on the money.
So why can't Co$ just renounce this repellant piece of writing, Theta? Why
does it have send people out to make unconvincing, black-is-white arguments
about it instead?
It is because of all the *other* things L Ron Hubbard wrote that would have
to be renounced for the same reasons?
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Theta
> >"Our policy is we don't waste time on them. To cater to them is to
> >betray 90% of the population."
>
> I'm seriously interested in what Hubbard meant by '90% of the population'.
The great majority of people on this planet are social personalities.
Such people can improve themselves and make tremendous gains in
Scientology. A very small minority of people, however, are destructive
in nature and are anti-social. Such individuals do not make any gains
and can cause trouble for those that do.
Addressing this minority, LRH states, is a waste of time. The time and
effort spent on trying to improve such individuals would be of better
use in helping the many people, the social personalities, who
genuinely want to do better, who can make case gains.
Therefore they are disposed of quietly and without sorrow. They are
taken offlines, out of orgs, and are not missed. With the destructive
element removed, the creative and social majority can do even better
within a much more positive and sane environment.
All the best
Mike
--
Theta
> Hartley Patterson wrote:
>
> > > To view the Tone Scale in full, visit:
> > > http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/full.htm
> >
> > Oo - a better version! Must change link on my website!!
>
> Can't be all that much "better." They still left off "Love" and
> "Compassion."
Love is not an emotional tone. It is a degree of Affinity. The Tone
Scale, in all actuality, is a scale of the varying degrees of Love.
One can feel love for someone at any point on the scale, eg. You can
love someone and be angry at the same time.
I suggest reading the book Science of Survival. If you are interested
in aspects of Scientology then make the effort to read the relevant
source materials.
All the best
Mike
roger gonnet
"Theta" <th...@btinternet.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
18e81488.02010...@posting.google.com...
Sorry, you disobeyed entirely this command of Hubbard:
Never defend, always attack.
You misunderstood as well the FACTS: statistics show that in more than 50
years, the scam cult has never produced any clear or OT, and that even from
its own stats, only some 1000 so-called "OT 8s" were produced, most of them
having blown definitely from the scam since.
roger
Harold Pekteno
> Yes, this is a Hubbard quote. On its own, it reads like an advocation
> of genocide - a claim made by many Scientology critics on the web and
> on the usenet group alt.religion.scientology. Why would any religious
> group teach such a thing?
No religious group would teach such a thing, obviously. Yet we of the
ARSCC know that the "church" of Scientology has nothing to do with
religion, so you have made no point here.
You psychlos keep posting here, attempting to encrapulate us. Stop
it; it won't work. Your puny OTs have nothing to compare to our
mighty SP powers.
--
Harold Pekteno, Ethics Officer, ARSCC (wdne), Mesa AZ chapter
Hey, clam. Can you spare half a mil?
l.l.lipshitz
<18e81488.02011...@posting.google.com>:
there was another post further up in this thread,
with some additional quotes from 'science of
survival' that make it very clear hubbard did not
mean these people were to be merely taken offlines
but that they were to be, i think the phrase was,
'uniformly institutionalized' or something similar.
what is your spin on that?
-elle
----------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube-at-min-net ]=----------
most people are fools, most authority is malignant,
there is no god, and everything is wrong. -tn
Chris Leithiser
>
> Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message news:<3C3CD254...@bc.cc.ca.us>...
> > Hartley Patterson wrote:
> >
> > > > To view the Tone Scale in full, visit:
> > > > http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/full.htm
> > >
> > > Oo - a better version! Must change link on my website!!
> >
> > Can't be all that much "better." They still left off "Love" and
> > "Compassion."
>
> Love is not an emotional tone.
But hate is. Thanks for affirming that $cientology has room for hate
but not love.
> It is a degree of Affinity. The Tone
> Scale, in all actuality, is a scale of the varying degrees of Love.
> One can feel love for someone at any point on the scale, eg. You can
> love someone and be angry at the same time.
And no other emotions can co-exist? You can't hate someone and be
bored? Be angry and afraid? Why belong to a cult which tries to
redefine "love"?
> I suggest reading the book Science of Survival. If you are interested
> in aspects of Scientology then make the effort to read the relevant
> source materials.
Great advice. That's the one which fully reveals L. Ron Hubbard's
misogyny for all to see. Together with "History of Man," which proves
that Hubbard didn't know squat about science, and "Dianetics," which
does the same for mental health, these three texts sum up everything
that's wrong with $cientology.
Oh, and "$cientology Ethics," of course. Can't forget their Gestapo
manual.
Lovecraftian2001
Theta countered the very first sentence of my post with a Scientological
assessment' i.e., that 90% of the world can benefit from Scienology. Well,
considering the source it would have been a show of purest optimism to have
expected any other sort of answer.
Hey, are you going to try and counter the rest of my post, and answer the rest
of my questions?
Or should I simply declare my post as a victory on my part? I DO hate winning
so easily, I tell you. Happens too often here.
-Joshua Korosi
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>lovecraf...@aol.com (Lovecraftian2001) wrote in message news:<20020109151515...@mb-de.aol.com>...
>> >"Our policy is we don't waste time on them. To cater to them is to
>> >betray 90% of the population."
>> I'm seriously interested in what Hubbard meant by '90% of the population'.
>The great majority of people on this planet are social personalities.
>Such people can improve themselves and make tremendous gains in
>Scientology.
Nobody "makes gains" inside of organized crime, you idiot, except for
the ringleaders. Until you can show _ONE_ "Clear" that proves the
bait-and-switch frauds you and your fellow criminals sell to the
ignorant, you're debunked.
-- You love drugs! You love drugs, don't you?! You better
not say anything about my mother! Don't you DARE say anything
about my mother! -- Scientology's International President (Audio
files of this nutter at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice
"What is the name of scientology's secret books?" -- a.r.s. query
"Mein Kampf." -- David Rice
Theta
> Theta wrote:
> >
> > Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message news:<3C3CD254...@bc.cc.ca.us>...
> > > Hartley Patterson wrote:
> > >
> > > > > To view the Tone Scale in full, visit:
> > > > > http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/full.htm
> > > >
> > > > Oo - a better version! Must change link on my website!!
> > >
> > > Can't be all that much "better." They still left off "Love" and
> > > "Compassion."
> >
> > Love is not an emotional tone.
>
> But hate is. Thanks for affirming that $cientology has room for hate
> but not love.
'Love' and 'Hate' are not opposites, if that is what you are implying.
>
> > It is a degree of Affinity. The Tone
> > Scale, in all actuality, is a scale of the varying degrees of Love.
> > One can feel love for someone at any point on the scale, eg. You can
> > love someone and be angry at the same time.
>
> And no other emotions can co-exist? You can't hate someone and be
> bored? Be angry and afraid? Why belong to a cult which tries to
> redefine "love"?
Not necessarily a redefinition, but a more logical and understanding
approach to the subject. This is common sense at the end of the day.
Read the book and make your own mind up. You might find it
interesting. And no, you cannot be angry and also in fear at the exact
moment. You can move very quickly from one to the other but they are
indeed separate from eachother.
Can you recall a moment when you were bored and, at the exact moment,
directing hateful energy at someone or something? I'll wager that your
boredom dissipated the moment your attention switched. Let me know,
I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Take care,
Mike
Theta
Have you read the book, Christopher? Seriously, have you?
He finished off with saying: "I am not telling you this to advocate
the immediate slaughter of the 'merchants of fear'; I am merely giving
you a historical note." LRH.
The point, which (imho) is overwhelmingly clear, is that social beings
live far better, and are far happier, being in an environment that is
free from negativism, hostility and anti-social behaviour.
This is acknowledged within Scientology. Anti-social students are
routed out, taken offlines and out of Scientology altogether. That is
why some of you have been declared SP by the Church - because it
considers you to be anti-social, destructive or disruptive to others.
I suggest you read as much as you can of Hubbard's writings on PTSness
and Suppression for a much better understanding. Get hold of the
PTS/SP course pack if you can.
Take care,
Mike
Chris Leithiser
Yes.
> He finished off with saying: "I am not telling you this to advocate
> the immediate slaughter of the 'merchants of fear'; I am merely giving
> you a historical note." LRH.
A "historical note" he made up. Why make up a story? To make a point.
Why disclaim the point after you've made it? Because the cops may be
listening.
> The point, which (imho) is overwhelmingly clear, is that social beings
> live far better, and are far happier, being in an environment that is
> free from negativism, hostility and anti-social behaviour.
And genocide is one route to that paradise?
> This is acknowledged within Scientology. Anti-social students are
> routed out, taken offlines and out of Scientology altogether. That is
> why some of you have been declared SP by the Church - because it
> considers you to be anti-social, destructive or disruptive to others.
And the anti-social, destructive, disruptive cult of $cientology is
qualified to judge others because...
> I suggest you read as much as you can of Hubbard's writings on PTSness
> and Suppression for a much better understanding. Get hold of the
> PTS/SP course pack if you can.
Got it at a used-book store about two years ago. :)
Rev Norle Enturbulata
--
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
Comedy Saves!
$cientology Enslaves!
Chris Leithiser
> > bored? Be angry and afraid? Why belong to a cult which tries to
> > redefine "love"?
>
> Not necessarily a redefinition, but a more logical and understanding
> approach to the subject. This is common sense at the end of the day.
Hubbard had little of "common sense" about him.
> Read the book and make your own mind up. You might find it
> interesting. And no, you cannot be angry and also in fear at the exact
> moment. You can move very quickly from one to the other but they are
> indeed separate from eachother.
Maybe _you_ can't.
Hubbard is saying that there is no room on the Tone Scale for love. You
can redefine and dance around the truth all you want.
> Can you recall a moment when you were bored and, at the exact moment,
> directing hateful energy at someone or something? I'll wager that your
> boredom dissipated the moment your attention switched. Let me know,
> I'd be interested in your thoughts.
No, you wouldn't.
Keshet
<18e81488.02011...@posting.google.com>:
<snip>
> Have you read the book, Christopher? Seriously, have you?
I don't know about Christopher, but I have, seriously.
> He finished off with saying: "I am not telling you this to advocate
> the immediate slaughter of the 'merchants of fear'; I am merely giving
> you a historical note." LRH.
And then he continued:
"No social order which desires to survive dares overlook its
stratum of 1.1's. No social order will survive which does not
remove these people from its midst."
And:
"Such people should be taken from the society as rapidly as
possible and uniformly institutionalized..."
And further:
"The only answers would seem to be the permanent quarantine of
such persons from society to avoid the contagion of their
insanities and the general turbulence which they bring to any
order, thus forcing it lower on the scale, or processing such
persons until they have attained a level on the tone scale
which gives them value."
I think it's clear that Hubbard did, indeed, want to "delete" SPs.
So Hubbard included his Venezuelan dictator tale merely as an
"historical note"? Why? To show that his solution of locking up SPs
permanently was less extreme or more humane?
I'd like to hear your explanation of the quotes I've included above.
> The point, which (imho) is overwhelmingly clear, is that social beings
> live far better, and are far happier, being in an environment that is
> free from negativism, hostility and anti-social behaviour.
Certainly. And to attain that environment, Hubbard was ready to
permanently quarantine dissidents. What exactly did he have in mind?
Internment camps?
> This is acknowledged within Scientology. Anti-social students are
> routed out, taken offlines and out of Scientology altogether. That is
> why some of you have been declared SP by the Church - because it
> considers you to be anti-social, destructive or disruptive to others.
I think the quotes I've included show that Hubbard's definition of
SPs is much broader than just "bad" Scientologists. He is talking
about elminiating dissidents from society at large.
> I suggest you read as much as you can of Hubbard's writings on PTSness
> and Suppression for a much better understanding. Get hold of the
> PTS/SP course pack if you can.
I also suggest this.
Keshet
--
Kes...@despammed.com ** http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/racism/
Where prejudice exists it always discolors our thoughts. Mark Twain
ptsc
>Theta (th...@btinternet.com) wrote in
>I think the quotes I've included show that Hubbard's definition of
>SPs is much broader than just "bad" Scientologists. He is talking
>about elminiating dissidents from society at large.
> > I suggest you read as much as you can of Hubbard's writings on PTSness
> > and Suppression for a much better understanding. Get hold of the
> > PTS/SP course pack if you can.
>I also suggest this.
Then get a copy of Mein Kampf and compare and contrast. Hubbard's "PTS/SP
Detection, handling and routing course" would be right at home in a Nazi
training manual.
ptsc
Theta
> Theta wrote:
>
> > He finished off with saying: "I am not telling you this to advocate
> > the immediate slaughter of the 'merchants of fear'; I am merely giving
> > you a historical note." LRH.
>
> A "historical note" he made up. Why make up a story? To make a point.
> Why disclaim the point after you've made it? Because the cops may be
> listening.
>
> > The point, which (imho) is overwhelmingly clear, is that social beings
> > live far better, and are far happier, being in an environment that is
> > free from negativism, hostility and anti-social behaviour.
>
> And genocide is one route to that paradise?
<sigh> I won't lose any sleep over the fact that we disagree, Chris. I
am the one that studies these materials, afterall, and I am well aware
what it means - even if you don't.
>
> > This is acknowledged within Scientology. Anti-social students are
> > routed out, taken offlines and out of Scientology altogether. That is
> > why some of you have been declared SP by the Church - because it
> > considers you to be anti-social, destructive or disruptive to others.
>
> And the anti-social, destructive, disruptive cult of $cientology is
> qualified to judge others because...
I didn't know one had to be ~qualified~ to judge others...but still.
Considering that the CoS is the organisation that promotes and
delivers Scientology services, as well as training up Auditors, it has
a right to eject anyone it sees fit if it wishes to, especially if
there are individuals causing trouble for others. If, in your opinion,
you see that, in itself, as being anti-social then that is up to you.
But such decisions are made for the greater good. And it is true that
groups do better with the anti-social element removed. Society removes
criminals by putting them in prison. Corporations remove (sack) staff
who are unethical or disruptive. The process is exactly the same.
Take care,
Mike
Chris Leithiser
>
> Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message news:<3C44595E...@bc.cc.ca.us>...
> > Theta wrote:
> >
> > > He finished off with saying: "I am not telling you this to advocate
> > > the immediate slaughter of the 'merchants of fear'; I am merely giving
> > > you a historical note." LRH.
> >
> > A "historical note" he made up. Why make up a story? To make a point.
> > Why disclaim the point after you've made it? Because the cops may be
> > listening.
> >
> > > The point, which (imho) is overwhelmingly clear, is that social beings
> > > live far better, and are far happier, being in an environment that is
> > > free from negativism, hostility and anti-social behaviour.
> >
> > And genocide is one route to that paradise?
>
> <sigh> I won't lose any sleep over the fact that we disagree, Chris. I
> am the one that studies these materials, afterall, and I am well aware
> what it means - even if you don't.
As I don't lose any sleep over $cientology's genocidal plans--since
they're shrinking daily and don't pose any real threat. The worst they
can do is influence other issues--psychiatry and free speech to name
two--in a negative way.
> > > This is acknowledged within Scientology. Anti-social students are
> > > routed out, taken offlines and out of Scientology altogether. That is
> > > why some of you have been declared SP by the Church - because it
> > > considers you to be anti-social, destructive or disruptive to others.
> >
> > And the anti-social, destructive, disruptive cult of $cientology is
> > qualified to judge others because...
>
> I didn't know one had to be ~qualified~ to judge others...but still.
There is that pesky "he who is without sin" saying from the R6 implant.
Not that I--or any critic--is without sin. But most of us haven't yet
set up our own religions, either.
Hubbard is flat-out unqualified to denounce others' behavior, though.
> Considering that the CoS is the organisation that promotes and
> delivers Scientology services, as well as training up Auditors, it has
> a right to eject anyone it sees fit if it wishes to, especially if
No question. It does _not_ have the right to follow-up that ejection
with harassment techniques. And it does _not_ have the right to prevent
those who have left the cult from practicing Hubbard's pseudoscience on
their own in the Freezone or as individuals.
> there are individuals causing trouble for others. If, in your opinion,
> you see that, in itself, as being anti-social then that is up to you.
No, I had more in mind the policy formerly known as "Fair Game," the
actions of $cientology attempting to stifle free speech on this
newsgroup and elsewhere, its repeated lies against psychiatry, its
harboring of individuals like Reed Slatkin and others, its treatment of
Raul Lopez, and always--semper toujours--Lisa McPherson.
> But such decisions are made for the greater good.
As defined by $cientology. I could tread the slopes of Godwin's Law
here but shall refrain.
> And it is true that groups do better with the anti-social element removed.
Dammit, I _was_ refraining. How much better did Nazi Germany run after
the "undesireables" were removed? Or did they just fail to remove
_enough_ undersireables? Maybe Hubbard could have pointed out a larger
group--as in his fable of the lepers and the beggars--who should have
been rounded up?
> Society removes criminals by putting them in prison.
With due process, even going so far as to provide defense lawyers if
necessary. And the citizenry gets to make the ultimate decision here,
through its election of lawmakers--flawed though that practice is. Does
_anyone_ get to revise L. Ron Hubbard?
> Corporations remove (sack) staff who are unethical or disruptive. The process is exactly the same.
Except that corporations who practice Fair Game against fired employees
soon find themselves paying large sums of money in court. As
$cientology was assessed damages in the Wallersheim case. When are you
going to pay that one, by the way? The interest charges are mounting.
Theta
> Theta wrote:
> >
> > Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message
> > > And no other emotions can co-exist? You can't hate someone and be
> > > bored? Be angry and afraid? Why belong to a cult which tries to
> > > redefine "love"?
> >
> > Not necessarily a redefinition, but a more logical and understanding
> > approach to the subject. This is common sense at the end of the day.
>
> Hubbard had little of "common sense" about him.
>
> > Read the book and make your own mind up. You might find it
> > interesting. And no, you cannot be angry and also in fear at the exact
> > moment. You can move very quickly from one to the other but they are
> > indeed separate from eachother.
>
> Maybe _you_ can't.
>
> Hubbard is saying that there is no room on the Tone Scale for love. You
> can redefine and dance around the truth all you want.
Your truth, maybe. But not mine. And that is certainly not what
Hubbard wrote. In Science of Survival, as well as any of the materials
he wrote describing the ARC Triangle, he talks about how love is
actually synonymous with Affinity.
from http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/sh3_1.htm
"The word affinity is here used to mean love, liking or any other
emotional attitude. Affinity is conceived in Scientology to be
something of many facets. Affinity is a variable quality." LRH
All the Tone Scale shows is the varying degrees of love one can have
towards someone or something.
>
> > Can you recall a moment when you were bored and, at the exact moment,
> > directing hateful energy at someone or something? I'll wager that your
> > boredom dissipated the moment your attention switched. Let me know,
> > I'd be interested in your thoughts.
>
> No, you wouldn't.
Take care,
Mike
Chris Leithiser
>
> Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message news:<3C4459BD...@bc.cc.ca.us>...
> > Theta wrote:
> > >
> > > Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message
> > > > And no other emotions can co-exist? You can't hate someone and be
> > > > bored? Be angry and afraid? Why belong to a cult which tries to
> > > > redefine "love"?
> > >
> > > Not necessarily a redefinition, but a more logical and understanding
> > > approach to the subject. This is common sense at the end of the day.
> >
> > Hubbard had little of "common sense" about him.
> >
> > > Read the book and make your own mind up. You might find it
> > > interesting. And no, you cannot be angry and also in fear at the exact
> > > moment. You can move very quickly from one to the other but they are
> > > indeed separate from eachother.
> >
> > Maybe _you_ can't.
> >
> > Hubbard is saying that there is no room on the Tone Scale for love. You
> > can redefine and dance around the truth all you want.
>
> Your truth, maybe. But not mine. And that is certainly not what
> Hubbard wrote. In Science of Survival, as well as any of the materials
> he wrote describing the ARC Triangle, he talks about how love is
> actually synonymous with Affinity.
And if you call a dog's tail a leg, he's still got only four legs.
Hubbard can redefine love all he wants...since he apparently had little
experience with the phenomenon, though, his defininitions mean little in
the Real World.
>
> from http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/sh3_1.htm
>
> "The word affinity is here used to mean love, liking or any other
> emotional attitude. Affinity is conceived in Scientology to be
> something of many facets. Affinity is a variable quality." LRH
So is electricity. It tickles me that all $cientology had to do to fix
the problem is find some place on the Tone Scale for "love."
(Presumably near the top.) They can't. They can't find it.
> All the Tone Scale shows is the varying degrees of love one can have
> towards someone or something.
All the Tone Scale shows is that "there's a sucker born every minute."
Zinj
th...@btinternet.com says...
It's the fact that ScientologyŽ considers all 'non-Scientology' elements
of Society to be 'insane', and requiring of replacement by Scientology,
whether Society wants it or not, that makes ScientologyŽ 'anti-social'.
Scientology *could* proceed 'politically' or 'democratically' and offer
the boons of a 'Clear Planet' openly; however, in a rare showing of
perception, Scientology, realizing that, without sufficient 'training',
no sane person would choose the 'total freedom trap', maintains its
'covert hostility' to all things wog.
Zinj
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message news:<3C44595E...@bc.cc.ca.us>...
>> Theta wrote:
>>> He finished off with saying: "I am not telling you this to advocate
>>> the immediate slaughter of the 'merchants of fear'; I am merely giving
>>> you a historical note." LRH.
>> A "historical note" he made up. Why make up a story? To make a point.
>> Why disclaim the point after you've made it? Because the cops may be
>> listening.
>>> The point, which (imho) is overwhelmingly clear, is that social beings
>>> live far better, and are far happier, being in an environment that is
>>> free from negativism, hostility and anti-social behaviour.
Adolf Hitler thought so, too.
>> And genocide is one route to that paradise?
><sigh> I won't lose any sleep over the fact that we disagree, Chris. I
>am the one that studies these materials, afterall, and I am well aware
>what it means - even if you don't.
Do you advocate exterminating millions of innocent people? L. Ron
Hubbard's writings specifically call for such activity. Are you
in favor of it or not?
MABosnos
If your statement (following) is true, then why is it so notoriously difficult
to obtain a refund from Scientology?
JimDBB
>From: mabo...@aol.com (MABosnos)
>Theta,
>
>If your statement (following) is true, then why is it so notoriously
>difficult
>to obtain a refund from Scientology?
It is not that difficult. You have to be dermined and persevere. If they don't
refund youur money they could lose their tax-exempt status.
jimdbb
Dave Bird
Lovecraftian2001 <lovecraf...@aol.com> writes:
>>"Our policy is we don't waste time on them. To cater to them is to
>>betray 90% of the population."
>
>I'm seriously interested in what Hubbard meant by '90% of the population'.
>level which is beyond my reasoning.
I can perfectly well understand what he is saying: it is insane
(or half-asstral), but perfectly easy to understand.
He thinks that, in his opinion, 90% of the human population
IF AND WHEN EXPOSED TO SCIENTOLOGY will become happy little clams.
If there is someone in the organisation who is an unreformable
dissident, then at that point the solution is to throw them out
utterly and completely, before they can convince show any other
chumps that the emperor has no clothes. No further effort should
be wasted trying to chance them, because this would rob from
the sales effort directed at all the rest of the population....
who really really need scientology. Not forgetting that
scientology also really really needs their money.
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
Dave Bird
<th...@btinternet.com> writes:
>Science of Survival helps practitioners raise people on the Tone
>Scale, up into the higher brackets and thus helping them to become
>happier and more joyful. The three methods outlined are:
>
>1) Education - learning the tools and knowledge necessary to improve
>oneself and conditions in life.
>
>2) Change in environment - move out of a hostile or antagonistic
>environment and into an environment that is more positive and higher
>toned.
>
>3) Auditing - receive Scientology counselling which frees up more of
>one's own natural, positive energy, enabling one to be happier and
>more able in life.
>
>These are known as the three valid processes which Hubbard mentions in
>the above quotation. These processes are used by Auditors on their
>clients to help them achieve heightened states of being.
Remember, these criteria apply across the whole of society i.e.
everyone MUST acknowledge scientology beliefs and accept
$cientology beliefs. Those who persistently refuse are
anti-social "others"....
>
>However, a very small percentage of people who are stuck, chronically,
>in the lower bands on the Tone Scale do not respond to the three
>processes, and does not make much, if any, gain in Scientology as a
>whole. Such individuals (see
>http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk/quotes.htm) often exert negative,
>oppressive influences on others and tend to be destructive in nature.
Hubbard explains clearly what is meant to be done with these
others. Apparently the ruler of Venezuela had a problem with
lepers who were beggars. So he had all the beggars, leper or not,
"collected and destroyed".
####################### It is quite clear what this means.
It is what you do with bin-bags of waste paper. You shove them
in the back of a van and take them to be thrown into the incinerators.
That is what Hubbard thinks should be done, in a Scientology society,
with anyone who persistently rejects scientology (and a few others
for good measure so none get overlooked for incineration).
In article<3C3C7FCE...@bc.cc.ca.us>, Chris Leithiser
<clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> writes:
>Christ: Consider the lilies of the field, and emulate them.
>Hubbard: Consider the lepers of the street, and murder them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In article<mPd%7.5877$1s6.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Roland
<roland.rash...@virgin.net> writes:
>If you will believe the poster known as Theta then Hubbard's quote "dispose
>of them quietly and without sorrow" is taken out of context by critics to
>imply that Hubbard intended something harmful. Well here it is in context so
>that you can decide for yourselves.
>
>
>Science of Survival, Book One, Chapter Twenty-Seven, "Method Used by Subject
>to Handle Others" (3 pages in)
>
>"The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0
>down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would
>reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people
>from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale, neither one of which has anything to do
>with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts.
>The first is to raise them on the Tone Scale by unenturbulating some of
>their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose
>of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to
>people on the lower bands of the Tone Scale. Not all the beauty nor the
>handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the
>vicious damage such people can do to sane men and women. The sudden and
>abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the Tone
>Scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the
>cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any
>society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of Clears
>in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only
>necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by
>processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line - a task
>which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many
>cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in
>excess of two hundred - or simply quarantining them from the society. A
>Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in
>his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and
>destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that
>country."
__ .\|/////..
||_.-' '. /\\|// ----
// ; | -----
--._// .\|/. .==== =====. ---
(( //(####) \d]>||<[d]>\ (~\ The only real crime for which
|| v '--'\\ . | \ | one can be punished by govern-
|| ; v . {_ \ : \/ ments of today is lack of money.
// .' : .'___' : ' In other crimes, if one has the
// ; '. ~===~ /\ huge sums necessary to hire
// . .... o : /__\'''' / \ lawyers, one can often get off.
. \\\\~~~~|~~~~~~~|\\ / /\/,,,L.RON HUBBARD,
. | .\''. |/''''/.|,,\\ //,,,,,,,Phat Dead Phounder of
'.|: O :|[ / ]|,,,,\/,,,,,,,,, the $cientology cult.
----------------| '...' |[__O__]|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[in HCOPL 20/sept/76]---------
|_______|_______|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,