Harmful processing
Christine Norstrand
What constitutes harmful processing?
I am of the persuasion that even best and most workable processes are
harmful if basic auditing is out and subjugated to a goal of creating an
effect on the pc (even a "good" effect, in the auditor's estimation). That
is, I think power of choice is even more basic than basic auditing. Fill
in my estimation of the old school here:
What processes are themselves "harmful"? Are they more harmful than life
experiences? Or is it not flattening a process (and other code breaks)
that is itself harmful?
In one of the Level 0 tapes, Hubb says that nothing has happened this
lifetime that could drive a thetan even faintly nervous. Do we have
processes in themselves that could drive a person faintly nervous?
Any mores that we all play nice-nice and don't say anything bad about other
FZ processes are suspended for this thread.
Best,
Christine
http://www.lightlink.com/xine/
Lightnin80
In article <4.1.199901030...@mail.lightlink.com>, Christine
Norstrand <xi...@lightlink.com> writes:
>
>
>What constitutes harmful processing?
Good question, I'm gonna give that the thought it deserves
and not just come off the cuff with an answer.
But I think you may have to get pretty wide on this
after all there are people in church today who are
praying singing do whatever to get closer to and make a connection
with a higher part of self.
That is processing in IMO and I honor that desire or want
yet I don't participate in that process, I think you need to
get a very wide view of what is considered processing
and a recognition of rightness much broader than what
comes under the heading of "clearing"
BTW the use of "YOU" above is not directed at Chrisitne :)
it is the proverbial you.
>
>I am of the persuasion that even best and most workable processes are
>harmful if basic auditing is out and subjugated to a goal of creating an
>effect on the pc (even a "good" effect, in the auditor's estimation). That
>is, I think power of choice is even more basic than basic auditing. Fill
>in my estimation of the old school here:
Seems what is needed is a more universal code that aligns with
all practices not just those of the Freezone persuasions.
Don't hold your breathe while I write it though, while I see a need
for it I also have a feel for what a huge job that would be.
>
>What processes are themselves "harmful"? Are they more harmful than life
>experiences? Or is it not flattening a process (and other code breaks)
>that is itself harmful?
Clearing should have it's own particular codes within the context
of it's standards, but if leadership is to be taken from the Freezone
again it's just going to have to rise above its own self and put out
something that will make the Catholic priest to the witchdoctor a
part of the bigger scene.
>
>In one of the Level 0 tapes, Hubb says that nothing has happened this
>lifetime that could drive a thetan even faintly nervous. Do we have
>processes in themselves that could drive a person faintly nervous?
More of the what's harmful question, again I want to give that some
really good lookin at, my hats off to you Christine to even broach this
area takes guts pure and simple.
>
>Any mores that we all play nice-nice and don't say anything bad about other
>FZ processes are suspended for this thread.
Sounds cool to me :) but maybe against the backdrop of coming
up with some sort step towards a universal code.
Critiquing is an art, it is so easy to tear apart anything, the trick is
in recognizing rightness, as soon as Homer posts on whats right
about the Catolic church we're off and running LOL
Lightnin
>
>Best,
>
>Christine
>
>
RDucharme
>
>What constitutes harmful processing?
>I am of the persuasion that even best and most workable processes are
>harmful if basic auditing is out and subjugated to a goal of creating an
>effect on the pc (even a "good" effect, in the auditor's estimation). That
>is, I think power of choice is even more basic than basic auditing. Fill
>in my estimation of the old school here:
>
>experiences? Or is it not flattening a process (and other code breaks)
>that is itself harmful?
Negative processes do definitely exist. One done to us as a group in St.
Louis was "think of something you don't like about yourself" done
repetitively, followed mercifully by a locational. The point was to
demonstrate the existence of bank, and what processing would do. The point
was well made, but it was still a painful demonstration that had lingering
effects.
Whether they're more harmful than life experiences or not depends on which
life experiences one is talking about. That could be an apples vs. oranges
comparison. Is being driven to insanity with a negative process (and that
would probably have to be done with malice aforethought) worse than being
battered by a parent as a child, or raped as a woman? On the other hand,
I've seen nothing yet that couldn't be scanned out, whether it be rapes,
battering, or negative processing. I've successfully cleared someone of
actual PDH brainwashing. But then that only goes to prove the basic
resilience of the being.
BTW, I consider scanning to be a valuable all-around tool that compares to
shutting down a computer and restarting it if all else fails to clear the
problem.
>In one of the Level 0 tapes, Hubb says that nothing has happened this
>lifetime that could drive a thetan even faintly nervous. Do we have
>processes in themselves that could drive a person faintly nervous?
I think the danger is in restimulating so much charge at once that it
creates an occlusion and therefore makes future processing extremely
difficult. That can happen with the best of processes.
Interestingly, I've had to handle a lot of overts of omission by Scio
auditors i.e. bypassing case that needed addressing, but damned few overts
of commission i.e. bad processing, which there has been a lot of. That
tells me that bad processing in itself is not nearly as damaging as the old
school might have led us to believe.
Robert
>Any mores that we all play nice-nice and don't say anything bad about other
>FZ processes are suspended for this thread.
>
>Best,
>
>Christine
>
>http://www.lightlink.com/xine/
>
>
LR1467
>Negative processes do definitely exist. One done to us as a group in St.
>Louis was "think of something you don't like about yourself" done
>repetitively,
The above is an "out of ARC process" and therefore
whatever-one-wants-to-call-it, squirrel, damaging, etc. I used that command as
"tell the person something you don't like too much about them" alternated with
"tell the person something you do like about them" on a small group of paired
off pre-schoolers to great results. LRH talks about out of ARC commands. I
consider any out of ARC command NOT to be a process at all.
>
>I think the danger is in restimulating so much charge at once that it
>creates an occlusion and therefore makes future processing extremely
>difficult. That can happen with the best of processes.
>
>
In the hands of the worst of auditors, perhaps. A good auditor will know if
this is occurring and take steps to correct it. A really great auditor will
not do it at all. Perhaps you were referring to say, R3R where a guy gets into
a heavy implant or something as an ES on a chain. But then there is the
"mind's protection." As a PC, I never got into anything heavier than I inately
knew my auditor and myself together couldn't get me out of. Aud+PC IS >the
bank.
> bad processing in itself is not nearly as damaging as the old
>school might have led us to believe.
>
>
What "old school" was that? I have always been under the impression that an
auditor can't turn anything on with a process that can't be handled.
Referring to the term "auditor" as one who knows his tech, of course.
LR
LR1467
>: I think you need to
>: get a very wide view of what is considered processing
>: and a recognition of rightness much broader than what
>: comes under the heading of "clearing"
>
>
In my estimation, altho I may personally prefer a certain approach to my OWN
enlightenment - (would that be "en-lightnin-ment" to you?:) - I think the
criteria is basically what LRH said - "the playing of a better game" or
whatever "in the estimation of the PC" or client, etc. TA, charge, whatever,
off the case - off ANY case using ANY procedure - helps us all further along
whatever our way may be.
LR
Homer Wilson Smith
>In one of the Level 0 tapes, Hubb says that nothing has happened this
>lifetime that could drive a thetan even faintly nervous. Do we have
>processes in themselves that could drive a person faintly nervous?
Been running,
"What do you want?"
"What do you not want?"
"Tell me about wanting to be mortal."
"Tell me about wanting to be immortal."
Keep running into terror on recovering my immortality again, like
there is this big Omni Present Monster waiting for me the day I
remember a past life, in particular by approaching chains of past
deaths, of self, mothers, fathers, children, lovers etc.
Probably the 'nervous' point is the point the thetan ARC broke
with his immortality and chose to become mortal, and then further ARC
broke with his mortality but had nowhere further to go.
Processes that wake this stuff up but don't flatten it can
'harm' the being, in the sense of knocking his GNP to hell, but
may be good for him in the long run as the GNP he was involved with
was probably an overt product anyhow.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>Critiquing is an art, it is so easy to tear apart anything, the trick is
>in recognizing rightness, as soon as Homer posts on whats right
>about the Catolic church we're off and running LOL
What's right about the Catholic Church is confession.
What's wrong about the Catholic Church is not allowing confession
(no past lives etc.).
Which brings us to a harmful process, refusing to hear or accept
a confession, evaluation, invalidation, challenge etc.
What's right about the Catholic Church is no death forever.
What's wrong about the Catholic Church is hell forever.
What's right about the Catholic Church is Christ Consciousness.
What's wrong about the Catholic Church is that Christ died on a
Cross of Wood for our Sins.
Homer
Sarah Hefver
> What's right about the Catholic Church is confession.
>
> What's wrong about the Catholic Church is not allowing confession
> (no past lives etc.).
I am somewhat uncertain about this.
In my experience,people confess what is to them,an 'overt'.
It has a lot to do with responsibility and what the PC *CAN* be responsible
for.
In my little opinion,you just let them confess whatever it it is that
they feel that they actually did do and can see that they might have done.
You can push forever on past life overts on someone who 'knows'
they only lived once,and it will get you noplace real quick.
First,you have to run responsibility.
Unless you actually raise the ability of a being to be responsible and actually
accountable for something,you won't get far.
In my limited experience,at least 30% of past lives are forgotton in an idiotic attempt
to wipe out what someone did,or didn't do..
Yeah,there are other reasons why someone cannot remember their past lives,but
I've sometimes found that it's "Don't want to remember"
A usefull process is plain,straightforward 'Murder Routine'
This is the way it is.
You run a PC on her responsibilitly level or you might just as well forget it.
Sarah
Homer Wilson Smith
>Homer rightly remarks
>> What's right about the Catholic Church is confession.
>>
>> What's wrong about the Catholic Church is not allowing confession
>> (no past lives etc.).
>You can push forever on past life overts on someone who 'knows'
>they only lived once,and it will get you noplace real quick.
I am talking about the pc who wants to confess a whole track item
and is not allowed to or even consider it.
Homer
ladyv
> Homer rightly remarks
>
> > What's right about the Catholic Church is confession.
> >
> > What's wrong about the Catholic Church is not allowing confession
> > (no past lives etc.).
>
> I am somewhat uncertain about this.
> In my experience,people confess what is to them,an 'overt'.
> It has a lot to do with responsibility and what the PC *CAN* be responsible
> for.
> In my little opinion,you just let them confess whatever it it is that
> they feel that they actually did do and can see that they might have done.
Yes, the difficulty as I see it is that they are told
(indoctrinated) that certain things are sins and to be confessed. This
can completely miss what the being truly felt badly about. One of the
sins would definitely be mentioning past lives at ALL, since this
violates Catholic dogma.
The teachings in most religious groups evaluate for the
individual what is right and what is wrong. This prevents full disclosure
measured against what the individual believes to be right and wrong.
Love,
Enid
Dynamism, 7507 Ohio Place, La Mesa, CA. 91941.
Ph: 619 462-5160 Fax: 619 465-8848
http://www.lightlink.com/dynamism
LR1467
> Keep running into terror on recovering my immortality again, like
>there is this big Omni Present Monster waiting for me the day I
>remember a past life,
He's YOU Homer. I had one of those big bad under-the-beddies too. Then I had
to plow thru all that yukky responsibility that it was throwing at me, daring
me to remember. Very tricky stuff. One has a good cog and then gets presented
with being responsible for it. This is not a jab, this is a validation. Of
you, and anyone who has the guts. I'm still trying to find the rest of mine.
Guts, that is.
Processes that wake this stuff up but don't flatten it can
>'harm' the being, in the sense of knocking his GNP to hell, but
>may be good for him in the long run as the GNP he was involved with
>was probably an overt product anyhow.
One of the hardest things for me to swallow was "any case is better opened than
left closed" when it came to my own case. Especially when I found out ya just
gotta keep openin up some more. But at least the light at the end of the
tunnel is NOT the oncoming train, hey?
LR
LR1467
>I'm somewhat uncertain about this. In my experience, people confess what is
to them an 'overt.' It has a lot to do with responsibility and what the PC
*CAN* be responsible for.
Correct.
In a church (catholic - any others?) confession is bugged not by the lack of
reality on past lives but by the "how have you sinned, my son?" where the sin
is something defined BY THE CHURCH in its tenants, whatever. There isn't much
responsibility attached to it on the part of the confessee except he's afraid
of going to hell or whatever the alternative to unconfession of sin may be.
In the church (scientology) and mostly perhaps to the people who left, it is
bugged by misconceptions brought about by gang sec-checks or writing up all
those bad things one did while in some lower condition or other.
BASICALLY an overt is a DONE. The PC (or client or whatever) was CAUSING that
action. The other side is to run the motivators, when the person was at
EFFECT. And to the degree the person is aware of his thetaness, he is more
willing to look at these overts, these donenesses, and what effects those
actions produced and be responsible for same. He makes gains to the degree
they are things HE thinks are undesirable acts, not necessarily what his
auditor or group or society may have as a code of conduct or whatever. But
when one first starts out, it is usually those things unacceptable to others
that he answers up with. If the person is criminal in an area, then the
questions have to fit his reality. "Did you ever have sex on a first date?"
isn't an overt to some guy with notches on his bedpost. You've got to ask him
"Did you ever fail to get laid on a first date?" The first question would
qualify as "harmful processing" in that it would produce just a bunch of
bragging and floating needles where no charge was released from that particular
case.
>You can push forever on past life overts on someone who 'knows' they only
lived once, and it will get you noplace real quick.
True.
Past life overts will come up as they come up, as the person becomes more
responsible for the consequences of his actions and is not therefore afraid to
look earlier. There can be some doozies back there. But there is also the
caution not to let the PC dive whole track every time he's asked for an overt
and thereby escape present time overts.
It is a big subject with lots of data, but once understood (as I someday will
completely) it is very easy to do it correctly with a client to very big wins.
LRH says the case with withholds will not clear. It is not so important what
he has done 50 trillion years ago - unless he is still withholding it in PT to
his detriment.
>In my little opinion....
Since when have you had "little" opinions? Must have been over 3 months ago.
B-]
LR
Robert bob Hummels
Reading through this thread I keep seeing a quote
by LRH..no idea where from but.....
ANY processing is better than no processing.
and his repeated plea to "get them in session"
I have to agree that any process which follows
the auditors code MUST be ok. An out of ARC
process is of course NOT aligned with the code.
The point should be...even a "BAD" process gets
the PC looking. S/he may need repair afterwords...
but the initial push to get in session...will
remain. Therefore, there can be no BAD processing,
only degrees of rightness and wrongness in a process.
Back to the ol'Axiom Absolutes are....well you all
know it :).
bob
Lightnin80
>
>What constitutes harmful processing?
>
>
Christine I tried to answer this question as it is posed
but I just kept drawing a blank, so I'm going to come
at from the other end.
What constitutes benificial processing and say that
what is harmful is that which falls the farthest from the mark.
Processing which brings about balanced results in
the three parts of existence ...Spirit mind and body so if the
the spirit is adressed I would expect to see changes in
the other two as well.
If the body is adressed I would expect to see the same in the
spirit and mind, so mental processes which don't raise the other
two aspects would fall short of that standard.
So in this context things like Heavens Gate or whatever the name
of that was, would be seen as harmful because whatever spiritual
process that guy was running the result was harmful, as the mind
and body we're ignored as indicators.
What I look for in good processing is an across the boards increase
of well being, so when someone starts tellin me how the body is
unimportant I get real alert and I figure what ever the process is its
going to contain some imbalance and the more extreme the imbalance
the more harmful the process.
This is by the way the standard I apply to the work I do with
others, I always look for increases in income within a relatively
short time, processing should result in an across the boards rise
in one's well being, more confidence in one's self is a great indicator
mentally and I look for that as well, that the being is brighter and
more energetic and has greater reach.
So harmful processing would be those that are imbalanced in
their results...my dog died, I have a cold, my sister just went to
jail, but I feel great...what I would say is what you feel is disconnected
from the other two aspects of life....and whatever process you ran
to get there is harmful.
Lightnin
Christine Norstrand
>
>In article <4.1.199901030...@mail.lightlink.com>, Christine
>Norstrand <xi...@lightlink.com> writes:
>
>>
>>What constitutes harmful processing?
>>
>>
>
>Christine I tried to answer this question as it is posed
>but I just kept drawing a blank, so I'm going to come
>at from the other end.
>
>What constitutes benificial processing and say that
>what is harmful is that which falls the farthest from the mark.
>
>Processing which brings about balanced results in
>the three parts of existence ...Spirit mind and body so if the
>the spirit is adressed I would expect to see changes in
>the other two as well.
>
I guess I am not able to divorce the technology from basics (basic
auditing, code, etc.). "Harmful" processes are similar to the buttons we
push in TRs, except we flatten them. You can't have a harmful process
without having earlier out basic auditing, and even helpful and effective
processes become harmful in the presence of out basics. Not just innocuous
or ineffective.
I think your "spirit is addressed" idea is the fundamental thing. Are you
processing a person at cause, or to demonstrate the effect(ivesness) of
your technology.
Love,
Christine
Lightnin80
In article <19990104122907...@ngol05.aol.com>, light...@aol.com
(Lightnin80) writes:
>
>So harmful processing would be those that are imbalanced in
>their results...my dog died, I have a cold, my sister just went to
>jail, but I feel great...what I would say is what you feel is disconnected
>from the other two aspects of life....and whatever process you ran
>to get there is harmful.
>
>Lightnin
>
>
Just thought of some examples of harmful processes.... the workaholic
who is running...work keeps my mind off it....he may have
some financial sucess, but his relationships suffer and he/she is
haggard or tired looking.
The monk who sits on a mountaintop for twenty years contemplating
his naval to reach nirvana, I'm not saying don't do this BTW, nirvana
is extremely cool, but so is a heroin high, but if the standard is
balanced progress in all aspects, then harmful can be deduced from
that standard.
Lightnin
Lightnin80
In article <4.1.199901040...@mail.lightlink.com>, Christine
Norstrand <xi...@lightlink.com> writes:
>>
>Hi Lightnin',
>
>I guess I am not able to divorce the technology from basics (basic
>auditing, code, etc.). "Harmful" processes are similar to the buttons we
>push in TRs, except we flatten them. You can't have a harmful process
>without having earlier out basic auditing, and even helpful and effective
>processes become harmful in the presence of out basics. Not just innocuous
>or ineffective.
>
>I think your "spirit is addressed" idea is the fundamental thing. Are you
>processing a person at cause,
I'm not sure I understand this? when a person comes to you for
help with this or that they are at unwilling effect. otherwise why
ask for assistance, in my case process is easy I only use one
"feel the feeling of"... this immediatlely starts the process of
turning unwilling effect into willing effect for their own edification
and that all important choice as to whether they want to continue
in its creation.
It is also a present time process and adresses the top of the pile
on a given area, my role is really just as a facilatator or grounding
factor, I don't pick the area is or what to run.
A person put's him/herself in front of you based on the fact
that you in their estimation of demonstrated some effectiveness
in handling the area they want handlled.
That is sometimes a friends estimation thus a recomendation
you can either deliver in terms of effectiveness or not
But effectiveness is always based on the clients estimation
and what they wanted to change or acomplish.
All I'm saying is my standard for what I do is an across the
boards change, the person may not use that standard....
example......gee I feel really great....which is fine if thats
all their after....but I still watch for the other area indicators.
I do what I do because I can....that may sound like a cop out
and not very goal oriented but its the best answer I got.
or to demonstrate the effect(ivesness) of
>your technology.
I hope that I am effective, but its not why I do it and like
I said the above is the most honest answer I have.
Lightnin
>
>Love,
>
>Christine
>
>
>
Christine Norstrand
>
>I'm not sure I understand this? when a person comes to you for
>help with this or that they are at unwilling effect. otherwise why
Not of the auditor. Of whatever they have postulated themeslves the effect
of. There isn't a contextless state of "cause" or "effect". It's in
relationship to something. In session, they (and the auditor) are
increasingly at cause over the issue at hand.
The auditor does not "solve" their problem for them. The auditor
introduces enough rightness that they can resolve their own issues.
Techniques that attempt to bypass the auditor-pc relationship in order to
create the "effect" of putting the person at cause such that there is an
auditor > pc > problem really put the pc the effect of the auditor and of
the problem. That's harmful processing, imo.
>A person put's him/herself in front of you based on the fact
>that you in their estimation of demonstrated some effectiveness
>in handling the area they want handlled.
>
I think this is sometimes true. In which case, they could just as well see
a hypnotist.
L,
Christine
Lightnin80
In article <4.1.199901041...@mail.lightlink.com>, Christine
Norstrand <xi...@lightlink.com> writes:
>>
>>I'm not sure I understand this? when a person comes to you for
>>help with this or that they are at unwilling effect. otherwise why
>
>Not of the auditor. Of whatever they have postulated themeslves the effect
>of.
Yes, I agree
There isn't a contextless state of "cause" or "effect". It's in
>relationship to something. In session, they (and the auditor) are
>increasingly at cause over the issue at hand.
Agrred again
>
>The auditor does not "solve" their problem for them.
No not for them but it is a matter of assistance if it is
only a matter of lending an ear to complete the comm cycle.
The auditor
>introduces enough rightness that they can resolve their own issues
Resolve their issues themselves ..yes...I'm not sure if it is rightness
the auditor introduces, that would seem to imply judgement, in my
mind the persons neither right or wrong, they are simply the effect of
their own creations they no longer have choice over..
>
>Techniques that attempt to bypass the auditor-pc relationship in order to
>create the "effect" of putting the person at cause such that there is an
>auditor > pc > problem really put the pc the effect of the auditor and of
>the problem. That's harmful processing, imo.
If I read this right that would include "making clears, making OT's
making good Catholics.
>
>>A person put's him/herself in front of you based on the fact
>>that you in their estimation of demonstrated some effectiveness
>>in handling the area they want handlled.
>>
>I think this is sometimes true. In which case, they could just as well see
>a hypnotist.
So what is harmful about that process ? This why I used my standard
for benificial processes instead of just labeling something harmful.
People get gains from some of the most awful processes, drugs
is a great example, my plea here if it is that, is for a standard that
gives a backdrop against processes can be estimated, not by just
those who have 25yrs experience as practitioners but anyone just
starting as well.
When I trained guys in construction the first thing I always gave them
was the standard by which to judge their work for themselves.
Plumb,straight, level and square, to the degree it falls from these
standards tells the story of workmanship, the thousands of small
details that go with acomplishing that come with experience.
Hiding or keeping the standard from being known makes robots
you teach details of process while never giving the standards by
which all work is judged.
Lightnin
>
>
>L,
>
>Christine
P.Scott
>>charge off the case - off ANY case using ANY procedure - helps us all
f>>urther along whatever our way may be.
>>
>>LR
True statement, but a hook .....you see?
That remark 'any auditing is better than no auditng' of course is direct
from Elrong hisself.....I could not disagree more. The history of the cult
is replete with one official auditing disaster after another....the early
NOTs 'errors'... the recent findings that the process is run out arc with
other entities, and the damages that has done ACW addresses that
extensively in his spiritual team mates materials. (need an example, look
at each and every senior management person in the RTC, OSA, and CS
divisions.....near totally out arc and viscious with the culture,
internally and externally.
There are other serverly subtle traps as well, I mention two in the bm
script #17..... and in previous posts regarding generating a *need* for
havingness for the material universe..... that may be an absolutely fatal
flaw.... need further evidence? Please observe how hubbard turned out,
viscious, and nuttier than a fruitcake. ( some don't understand viscious
maybe.... read the policy calling for utter destruction of individuals,
lying, and read Dandars, Lisa McPherson civil case filing on how the
Introspection rundown was applied exactly per tech and what it did for
Lisa...... read the RPF materials....notice the cult management has referred
to Lisa in very derogatory terms (before they began trying to make
themselves look nicey nicey to avoid the murder rap)
Truly LH, it might be a good idea to take a harder look at the real
issues.... it seems the harder one looks the bigger the disaster is
evident.... that's been the history of the a majority in the FZ..... even
former hard core LRH clones, have had major insights along these lines
lately.... (see the posts),
as you come along, and the ether begins to wear off, you will begin to see
these things as well, as I eventually did. ( I spent the first 2 years on
the web, justifying Hubbards disaster, and defending it much as you are
doing now..... it seems that we were brainwashed quite a bit more severely
than it first appears, the curve balls are still blowing off, as addressed
two in the bm#17 script posted today...
(phil scott)
Bob wrote:
>Reading through this thread I keep seeing a quote
>by LRH..no idea where from but.....
>
>ANY processing is better than no processing.
>and his repeated plea to "get them in session"
Hubbard has since demonstrated his ulterior motives to gain
world power, ruin his critics, and create the most viscious
cults the world has ever seen.......
I think "get them in session" had a lot more to do with a
desire to get the person brainwashed and controlled and donating huge sums
than for the persons benefit....
hubbard was quite willing to destroy
utterly anyone who did not go along with his program or
exposed the crimes of the organization. Hell he founded
forced aborition on unwilling mothers in his organization!
And the cadet orgs were, and probably still are absolute
snake pits of filth and neglect...(see marjory wakefields
write up www.factnet.org these are NOT the product of
a man who cared about people....but of a psychopath.... a
total psychopath.
Please lets look at these issues in evaluating his motives
as beneficent. They were not, the man was evil, but with
superb bait ( much of which btw was largely lifted directly from Nordholz's
book 'Scientologie' 1930's..... he drove his other key contributiors,
John McMaster and many others off, in ruin, and obliterated their names from
the list of credits....McMasters came up a huge part of the advance beyond
Nordholz...... its been said that Hubbard just created the 'trap' parts, the
mystery sandwich, the ruthless policy ot utterly destroy his critics.... I
tend to
agree with that assessment.)
>
>I have to agree that any process which follows
>the auditors code MUST be ok.
I cannot agree with that as noted in my reply to LH....Hubbards
approach ends up calling us individuated individuals ultimate Gods, he
effectively ridicules and denies any transcendence beyond that, the tactic
effectively severs a search for the higher level links..... (that is the
original dark side agenda, an appeal to the ego, that leaves a person
individuated, powerless at absolute levels, and distracted by otherwise, ego
appealing, 'loving' words)
>An out of ARC
>process is of course NOT aligned with the code.
>
>The point should be...even a "BAD" process gets
>the PC looking. S/he may need repair afterwords...
Yes thats for sure.....tell that to Lisa McPherson...from what I can
tell, first she was "utterly ruined" spiritually, then chemically, then
emotionally, and finally physically .... to death. She indeed may need
some repair...
Do you think it may take more an intensive? That was the LRH's gift
to Lisa after she donated close to 1/4 million dollars and half her life to
the cult..... the Introspection rundown....with chloral hydrate, straigth
out of the US army manual on how to break a person, and ruin them
utterly...... that was Hubbards gift to Lisa..... administered of course by
his hand picked executives now in charge of the cult. (DM was an Elrong
favorite long before he took over... and the viscious policy Elrong wrote
was written all the way back to the 60's...... I'd recommend one think
long and hard before giving hubbards creation respect while ignoring the
pervasively evil aspects.
Very Best Regards, Phil Scott
----------Signature file------------------
When one can look directly at the messiest personal truths,
then one can see through deception anywhere. Only in this
way does one ever have a chance of finding the ultimate truths
of the universe that set one free.
--------------------------------------
The way to discover the truth about oneself is to measure
against absolute standards..... On that scale, chose any area, how
truthful is one, how much does one know about some topic, or skill
compared to how much there is to know on a scale of absolutes
stretched out a hundred or a thousand years into the future.
... This will disclose the truth of ones condition.
--------------------------------------------
Wisdom is not attained soley on ones own effort. It is a gift, founded in
truth and humility. It may be, that in the final analysis, there is no
Life, without
wisdom.
----------end of signature file---------------
(snip)
>
>bob
>
>
>
>
>
Homer Wilson Smith
>The point should be...even a "BAD" process gets
>the PC looking. S/he may need repair afterwords...
>remain. Therefore, there can be no BAD processing,
>only degrees of rightness and wrongness in a process.
Degress of rightness and wrongness would add up to
degrees of badness or goodness or processing, thus your
own argument supports that there is bad processing.
It is not true that ANY processing is better than no
processing, unless you assume that 'processing' means
basically good processing, even if flubbed.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>Processing which brings about balanced results in
>the three parts of existence ...Spirit mind and body
Yeah definitely don't audit the Heart.
Homer
RDucharme
>
>
>
>
>
>
[ garbage, nonsense, looney tunes, and silliness deleted, and all the
worthwhile data reposted above ]
The worthwhile data was brilliant, Scott. Wish you would post only that.
Robert
P.Scott
I figure the more of this type data that gets out the better, by your
request for more material you have encouraged that result...
Its just that this all is just my perspective, based on the few
thousand pages of documents I've read, and while I spent 20
years studying the cult and doing its upper level materials and
training as an auditor..... you seem more confident in what you
know. Perhaps you have seen things I have not.
Your comments to the specific items below would be much
appreciated.
Very Best Regards, Phil Scott
--
P.Scott wrote in message ...
>
LR articulated as follows:
>>>charge off the case - off ANY case using ANY procedure - helps us all
>f>>urther along whatever our way may be.
>>>
>>>LR
Phil Scott went on in reply:
Lightnin80
In article <1999010520...@netcom6.netcom.com>, "C. B. Willis"
<cbwi...@netcom.com> writes:
>
>Lightnin writes:
>: Plumb, straight, level and square, to the degree it falls from these
>: standards tells the story of workmanship, the thousands of small
>: details that go with acomplishing that come with experience.
>
>That about says it! We can all go home now.
Well before we all pack, someones gonna have to write the
standards that fit hynotists to witchdoctors to clearing practitioners.
So what are the standards I've given mine.
Lightnin
>
>- CBW
>
>
Lightnin80
In article <3692a...@news2.lightlink.com>, ho...@light.lightlink.com (Homer
Wilson Smith) writes:
>
>>Processing which brings about balanced results in
>>the three parts of existence ...Spirit mind and body
>
> Yeah definitely don't audit the Heart.
There is heart within each of those three aspects Homer
as I see it.
A full set of Chakras for each aspect, each being connected
as a harmonic of the other.
But if you have a different standard, I'd love to hear it
>
> Homer
Robert Hummels
<snip>
> >Bob wrote:
> >>Reading through this thread I keep seeing a quote
> >>by LRH..no idea where from but.....
> >>
> >>ANY processing is better than no processing.
> >>and his repeated plea to "get them in session"
> >
> >Hubbard has since demonstrated his ulterior motives to gain
> >world power, ruin his critics, and create the most viscious
> >cults the world has ever seen.......
Is it really so hard for you to see that NOT
all of LRH's intentions have to be evil.
> > I think "get them in session" had a lot more to do with a
> >desire to get the person brainwashed and controlled and donating huge sums
> >than for the persons benefit....
Not always. I think there was a geniune concern
for others in the beginning. Perhaps this drifted
off-purpose later, but I just do NOT see a complete
evil purpose from the start.
> > hubbard was quite willing to destroy
> >utterly anyone who did not go along with his program or
> >exposed the crimes of the organization. Hell he founded
> >forced aborition on unwilling mothers in his organization!
Did he? Or was this another case of someone commiting
crimes in his name?
> >And the cadet orgs were, and probably still are absolute
> >snake pits of filth and neglect...(see marjory wakefields
> >write up www.factnet.org these are NOT the product of
> >a man who cared about people....but of a psychopath.... a
> >total psychopath.
Did he really know what was going on? I have a lot
of experience dealing with false reports from
subordinates. If you depend on someone who is
not dependable, it leaves you open for a lot
of grief.
> >Please lets look at these issues in evaluating his motives
> >as beneficent. They were not, the man was evil, but with
> >superb bait ( much of which btw was largely lifted directly from
> Nordholz's
> >book 'Scientologie' 1930's..... he drove his other key contributiors,
> >John McMaster and many others off, in ruin, and obliterated their names
> from
> >the list of credits....McMasters came up a huge part of the advance beyond
> >Nordholz...... its been said that Hubbard just created the 'trap' parts,
> the
> >mystery sandwich, the ruthless policy ot utterly destroy his critics.... I
> >tend to
> >agree with that assessment.)
> >
> >
> >>
> >>I have to agree that any process which follows
> >>the auditors code MUST be ok.
> >
> >I cannot agree with that as noted in my reply to LH....Hubbards
> >approach ends up calling us individuated individuals ultimate Gods, he
> >effectively ridicules and denies any transcendence beyond that, the tactic
> >effectively severs a search for the higher level links..... (that is the
> >original dark side agenda, an appeal to the ego, that leaves a person
> >individuated, powerless at absolute levels, and distracted by otherwise,
> >ego appealing, 'loving' words)
.and how does any of this occurr in a true
session held within the auditors code? Phil,
these actions are NOT within acceptable codes.
> > >An out of ARC
> >>process is of course NOT aligned with the code.
> >>
> >>The point should be...even a "BAD" process gets
> >>the PC looking. S/he may need repair afterwords...
> >
> >Yes thats for sure.....tell that to Lisa McPherson...from what I can
> >tell, first she was "utterly ruined" spiritually, then chemically, then
> >emotionally, and finally physically .... to death. She indeed may need
> >some repair...
Which one of the actions described above was
actually based on the proper use of the tech?
Treating her there instead of at a hospital
as called for by policy is just one small
out-point in a complete series which lead to her
death.
> >Do you think it may take more an intensive? That was the LRH's gift
> >to Lisa after she donated close to 1/4 million dollars and half her life to
> >the cult..... the Introspection rundown....with chloral hydrate, straigth
> >out of the US army manual on how to break a person, and ruin them
> >utterly...... that was Hubbards gift to Lisa.....
Can you show us where Hubbard policy was followed,
NOT disregarded in Lisa's case? This like many of
the incidents leading to blown staff, etc....were all
out-tech, out-policy, in direct contradiction with
basic axioms, and codes of the auditor, the code of
honor....code of a scientologist. Out, Out, Out.
> >administered of course by
> >his hand picked executives now in charge of the cult. (DM was an Elrong
> >favorite long before he took over...
Was he? Or did he manuever himself into a
position where he called the shots in spite
of LRH still being alive and aware....by
cutting his comm lines to the Orgs?
> >and the viscious policy Elrong wrote
> >was written all the way back to the 60's...... I'd recommend one think
> >long and hard before giving hubbards creation respect while ignoring the
> >pervasively evil aspects.
Which policy? Specifics? First step of course
would have to be evaluating it against the basics.
If it violates any of the axioms, or codes....then
it was an out-policy. Blind followers are simply
NOT desireable if you want to improve things.
People need to evaluate what they read, apply it
where it is NOT in conflict with personal ethics, or
the balanced good of ALL DYNAMICS. Not just the 3d.
> >Very Best Regards, Phil Scott
bob
Free Scientologist
^^^^
Note: this DOES make a difference Phil.
Robert Hummels
> Robert "bob" Hummels (humm...@csi.com) wrote:
> >The point should be...even a "BAD" process gets
> >the PC looking. S/he may need repair afterwords...
> >but the initial push to get in session...will
> >remain. Therefore, there can be no BAD processing,
> >only degrees of rightness and wrongness in a process.
>
> Degress of rightness and wrongness would add up to
> degrees of badness or goodness or processing, thus your
> own argument supports that there is bad processing.
How much wrong makes it a bad process? Even if it
is a reverse-process introverting the PC or something,
just learning what makes a process is a win right?
I guess I am looking from the point of NO processing
vs. Processing. In the end I will always vote for
Processing. It is the start. What happens from there
is all bank ;-).
> It is not true that ANY processing is better than no
> processing, unless you assume that 'processing' means
> basically good processing, even if flubbed.
No, not at the start. Even if the first session
run is nothing but a reverse process. The problem is
once you start someone with crap like that, it
would take a miracle to get them back in session.
bob
> Homer
Christine Norstrand
>Lightnin80 (light...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>>Processing which brings about balanced results in
>>the three parts of existence ...Spirit mind and body
>
> Yeah definitely don't audit the Heart.
>
real communication. Been there, done that.
P.Scott
Robert Hummels wrote in message <3693366A...@csi.com>...
>P.Scott wrote:
><snip>
>> >Bob wrote:
>> >>Reading through this thread I keep seeing a quote
>> >>by LRH..no idea where from but.....
>> >>
>> >>ANY processing is better than no processing.
>> >>and his repeated plea to "get them in session"
>> >
>> >Hubbard has since demonstrated his ulterior motives to gain
>> >world power, ruin his critics, and create the most viscious
>> >cults the world has ever seen.......
>
>Is it really so hard for you to see that NOT
>all of LRH's intentions have to be evil.
No, he had considerable good intentions expecially
at the start, for the first 10 or 15 years... some hot
air mixed in. but I think largely very good intentions.
and superb results...... it went totally into the pits
slowly until he died.... ending up to be a very very
evil organization, with much of the good technology
replaced with very destructive technology.
The paranoia was there from day one though, have
you seen the recently released FBI files, letters he
wrote them in 1950-60....he was turning in own staff
as suspected communists... with very unimpressive
rants and posturing.
(the old OT levels, power was ruined, and clear
was quickied).
Since the base of his work sprung from satanist sources,
I tend to take a hard look at any hidden agenda from that
quarter..... I've written that up...the tendency to habituate one
to needing the material universe (havingness).... and what
Heidrun pointed out today, the fact that he makes the being
less than his bank.....( Heidrun articulated a length and I for
one could not agree more)
>
>> > I think "get them in session" had a lot more to do with a
>> >desire to get the person brainwashed and controlled and donating huge
sums
>> >than for the persons benefit....
>
>Not always. I think there was a geniune concern
>for others in the beginning. Perhaps this drifted
>off-purpose later, but I just do NOT see a complete
>evil purpose from the start.
Me neither....
>
>> > hubbard was quite willing to destroy
>> >utterly anyone who did not go along with his program or
>> >exposed the crimes of the organization. Hell he founded
>> >forced aborition on unwilling mothers in his organization!
>
>Did he? Or was this another case of someone commiting
>crimes in his name?
No it wasn't, he wrote and enforced the fair game policy for 20
years....he was on the front end of driving those attacks..... he was
NOT joking. He advocated ruining his critics utterly....and had
a long long record of doing and demanding just exactly that....
you may need to look at the material he wrote again, then read the
affidavits of those he hired to enforce it.
>
>> >And the cadet orgs were, and probably still are absolute
>> >snake pits of filth and neglect...(see marjory wakefields
>> >write up www.factnet.org these are NOT the product of
>> >a man who cared about people....but of a psychopath.... a
>> >total psychopath.
>
>Did he really know what was going on? I have a lot
>of experience dealing with false reports from
>subordinates. If you depend on someone who is
>not dependable, it leaves you open for a lot
>of grief.
OK, one incident sure, 10 scattered incidents sure...but 20 years or
rampage, kicked out of most ports he landed in, a pariah on several
continents..... overboarding..... Susan Meister shot between the eyes on his
boat with him on board.... and the litterally hundreds of reports about
his rages, drinking and heavy drug use.......... and his roots,
with Jack parsons! (read parsons account of his association with hubbard
in Babalon Working....Parsons was a credible person, a rocket fuel scientist
at JPL no less, and of course an avowed satanist into creating ruin and
degradation... its a sickening book to read in many sections.)
One needs to be up on these things, or he just buys the PR the cult puts
out.....the glossy image.
Totally true.... absolutely true. One way apparently to hide criminality
is to take a strong stand against it....like Jim Bakker the slimball TV
evangelest, preach greasy kindness, then steal old peoples last dime.
The cult management was nothing but one huge code break the way it treated
people...... there have been several tens of thousands of pages of these
accounts and deliberate code breaks documented by the cult itself in its
internal documents seized in the 1977 FBI raids.... a completely criminal
situation. you need to see this data for yourself apparently
www.factnet.org...... and about 50 other web sites accessible from there, or
I can email you my update list of critics web sites .... just ask.
>> > >An out of ARC
>> >>process is of course NOT aligned with the code.
>> >>
>> >>The point should be...even a "BAD" process gets
>> >>the PC looking. S/he may need repair afterwords...
>> >Yes thats for sure.....tell that to Lisa McPherson...from what I can
>> >tell, first she was "utterly ruined" spiritually, then chemically, then
>> >emotionally, and finally physically .... to death. She indeed may need
>> >some repair...
>
>Which one of the actions described above was
>actually based on the proper use of the tech?
Dandar in his civil filing does a remarkable analyis.... its about 30 pages
and is available on the web sites mentioned earlier. I will grant you that
the killing of Lisa was not in strict compliance with the tech, she was
drugged with chloral hydrate....everything else though was right out of the
HCOB package on the IR.
>Treating her there instead of at a hospital
>as called for by policy is just one small
>out-point in a complete series which lead to her
>death.
Look..... if one sees this sort of total disaster, then goes fishing for
some issue thats not an outpoint....and says 'lookie here. they did this
part right'...... thats called obfuscating the issue..... its irrelevant.
What is relevant is the long long list of crimes that lead to the long long
list of criminal convictions.... and the long long list of suicides and
deaths by hanging, gunshot or whatever...... thats the deal.
I could find 10,000 things they did right..... the floors were undoubtedly
vacuumed, the room was probably heated...... food was offered.... she wasn't
beaten..... 10,000 things. I could find another 10,0000 things right
about Jeffry Dalhmer (the canibal)..... he probably used clean knives,
condoms, had a good freezer.....
Thats NOT relevant.....whats relevant is the long long list of crimes, ruin
and disaster....... thats the issue, the rest is attempts to distract from
the issue.
See that?
>> >Do you think it may take more an intensive? That was the LRH's gift
>> >to Lisa after she donated close to 1/4 million dollars and half her life
to
>> >the cult..... the Introspection rundown....with chloral hydrate,
straigth
>> >out of the US army manual on how to break a person, and ruin them
>> >utterly...... that was Hubbards gift to Lisa.....
>Can you show us where Hubbard policy was followed,
>NOT disregarded in Lisa's case? This like many of
>the incidents leading to blown staff, etc....were all
>out-tech, out-policy, in direct contradiction with
>basic axioms, and codes of the auditor, the code of
>honor....code of a scientologist. Out, Out, Out.
True...totally true....actual fact..... sooth..... but you see the code of
a scientologist was written as a smoke screen for evil acts.... it was not
followed by hubbard at all.... ever...never. If you have not read the many
accounts of those closest to him, and his own admissions in private mail
that Gerry Armstrong got ahold of, of course you would be ignorant of these
facts...... and you'd be saying it was not hubbard.... it was his SP staff.
It was Hubbard friend...... all the way.....for decades......in his own hand
writting....... hundreds and hundreds of witnesses. and its all posted to
www.factnet.org in searchable data base for your edification and review.
>
>> >administered of course by
>> >his hand picked executives now in charge of the cult. (DM was an Elrong
>> >favorite long before he took over...
>Was he? Or did he manuever himself into a
>position where he called the shots in spite
>of LRH still being alive and aware....by
>cutting his comm lines to the Orgs?
Of course, thats pretty much the case..... Elrong had hand picked
about 40 top people.... and demanded they all tow the line and commit the
unsavory activities in the name of 'fighting enemies'...... the evil
wheezing dwarf was only one of them, the nastiest though by a long shot
apparently.
>
>> >and the viscious policy Elrong wrote
>> >was written all the way back to the 60's...... I'd recommend one think
>> >long and hard before giving hubbards creation respect while ignoring the
>> >pervasively evil aspects.
>
>Which policy? Specifics?
The 'Fair game policy"..... and those referenced on it, and the USGO
policy all available on the net, policy on how to destroy people, with ex
staff telling how he wrote most of it, and his wife Mary Sue wrote much of
the rest........You can find the fair game policy in the admin vols..... the
cult said it was cancelled 20 years ago, but since then they have been
convicted in courts around the world for applying those tactics.
>First step of course
>would have to be evaluating it against the basics.
>If it violates any of the axioms, or codes..
..KSW HCOPL calls for stamping out tech and any squirrels completely. (I
dont have the policy on hand for exact quote)
>it was an out-policy. Blind followers are simply
>NOT desireable if you want to improve things.
>People need to evaluate what they read, apply it
>where it is NOT in conflict with personal ethics, or
>the balanced good of ALL DYNAMICS. Not just the 3d.
It seems you are trying to say that if policy were followed, and the tech
were applied properly that the technology would be viable.....and that on
that basis, we should try to reform the operation.
I would not disagree with that completely...... and you are free to try to
reform the cult...... I had tried for 20 years myself, I'd still like to
see them reformed and producing the best of what the tech has to offer.
I'm just not into making excuses for Hubbard...... he founded the bulk of
the problems..... this of course is not evident completely the first year
one walks away from the cult, but among those who have been out for awhile,
probably 80% see hubbard as the founder of the bulk of the problem.
You wouldn't say, would you, that the man was irresponsible,,,, that is not
responsible for his creation. I am afraid Hubbard created the cult very
thoroughly, and very cunningly....... and ran it that way, with an 'iron
fist in a velvet glove' for 40 years.
Phil Scott
Robert Hummels
> Robert Hummels wrote in message <3693366A...@csi.com>...
> >P.Scott wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> >Bob wrote:
> >> >>Reading through this thread I keep seeing a quote
> >> >>by LRH..no idea where from but.....
> >> >>
> >> >>ANY processing is better than no processing.
> >> >>and his repeated plea to "get them in session"
> >> >
> >> >Hubbard has since demonstrated his ulterior motives to gain
> >> >world power, ruin his critics, and create the most viscious
> >> >cults the world has ever seen.......
> >
> >Is it really so hard for you to see that NOT
> >all of LRH's intentions have to be evil.
>
> No, he had considerable good intentions expecially
> at the start, for the first 10 or 15 years... some hot
> air mixed in. but I think largely very good intentions.
> and superb results...... it went totally into the pits
> slowly until he died.... ending up to be a very very
> evil organization, with much of the good technology
> replaced with very destructive technology.
OK
> The paranoia was there from day one though, have
> you seen the recently released FBI files, letters he
> wrote them in 1950-60....he was turning in own staff
> as suspected communists... with very unimpressive
> rants and posturing.
>
> (the old OT levels, power was ruined, and clear
> was quickied).
OK
>
> Since the base of his work sprung from satanist sources,
> I tend to take a hard look at any hidden agenda from that
> quarter..... I've written that up...the tendency to habituate one
> to needing the material universe (havingness).... and what
> Heidrun pointed out today, the fact that he makes the being
> less than his bank.....( Heidrun articulated a length and I for
> one could not agree more)
Here you begin your contradictions. His work was good for
the
first 10-15 years you state above....but was based on
satanist
crap (so really was not good) you then write.
> >> > I think "get them in session" had a lot more to do with a
> >> >desire to get the person brainwashed and controlled and donating huge
> sums
> >> >than for the persons benefit....
> >
> >Not always. I think there was a geniune concern
> >for others in the beginning. Perhaps this drifted
> >off-purpose later, but I just do NOT see a complete
> >evil purpose from the start.
>
> Me neither....
OK
> >
> >> > hubbard was quite willing to destroy
> >> >utterly anyone who did not go along with his program or
> >> >exposed the crimes of the organization. Hell he founded
> >> >forced aborition on unwilling mothers in his organization!
> >
> >Did he? Or was this another case of someone commiting
> >crimes in his name?
>
> No it wasn't, he wrote and enforced the fair game policy for 20
> years....he was on the front end of driving those attacks..... he was
> NOT joking. He advocated ruining his critics utterly....and had
> a long long record of doing and demanding just exactly that....
> you may need to look at the material he wrote again, then read the
> affidavits of those he hired to enforce it.
But what was the situation. Was he really attacking critics
who objected to some criminal activity (like happens today)
or was he attacking those who just laughed at the tech and
attempted to discredit it?
> >> >And the cadet orgs were, and probably still are absolute
> >> >snake pits of filth and neglect...(see marjory wakefields
> >> >write up www.factnet.org these are NOT the product of
> >> >a man who cared about people....but of a psychopath.... a
> >> >total psychopath.
> >
> >Did he really know what was going on? I have a lot
> >of experience dealing with false reports from
> >subordinates. If you depend on someone who is
> >not dependable, it leaves you open for a lot
> >of grief.
>
> OK, one incident sure, 10 scattered incidents sure...but 20 years or
> rampage, kicked out of most ports he landed in, a pariah on several
> continents..... overboarding.....
The subject was the cadet orgs... everyone can have a bad
day...or even 20 years worth of 'em. We need to look at
what tech he was jumping into which blasted him off-base.
He was NOT always like that. There were many incidents
involved in those years that proved various points of his
paranoia.
> Susan Meister shot between the eyes on his
> boat with him on board....
I think we already put this one to bed on ARS....and
not in Hubbards cabin either.
> and the litterally hundreds of reports about
> his rages, drinking and heavy drug use..........
Yes, and he was right...drugs and alcohol really
fuck up a persons case. Or was he displaying anything
different. Remember, I will not appologise for the
man, however he did us a very big service in the tech.
No one is always correct, or always perfect. Absolutes
will not be obtainable in this Universe.
> and his roots,
> with Jack parsons! (read parsons account of his association with hubbard
> in Babalon Working....Parsons was a credible person, a rocket fuel scientist
> at JPL no less, and of course an avowed satanist into creating ruin and
> degradation... its a sickening book to read in many sections.)
Why are you so offended by this? Do you believe in
Hell forever? Death forever? If not, then WTF does this
have to do with the tech? Who gives a rats ass if the
process was thought up while trying to have sexual relations
with three men and small farm animals! If it works......
then I guess it works and damn the circumstances of it's
discovery.
> One needs to be up on these things, or he just buys the PR the cult puts
> out.....the glossy image.
No, one needs to evaluate the tech. If it is worthy, then
use it, teach it. If not....then let the CofS keep it.
Just prevent them from abuses of their own codes.
Look Phil, the question was in reference to the tech. We all
know what sort of bullshit the CofS is pulling. It is NOT
the tech, NOT the codes...and NOT Scientology.
We don't need a lecture on it. If we didn't see this,
we would still be in the CofS!
> >> > >An out of ARC
> >> >>process is of course NOT aligned with the code.
> >> >>
> >> >>The point should be...even a "BAD" process gets
> >> >>the PC looking. S/he may need repair afterwords...
>
> >> >Yes thats for sure.....tell that to Lisa McPherson...from what I can
> >> >tell, first she was "utterly ruined" spiritually, then chemically, then
> >> >emotionally, and finally physically .... to death. She indeed may need
> >> >some repair...
> >
> >Which one of the actions described above was
> >actually based on the proper use of the tech?
>
> Dandar in his civil filing does a remarkable analyis.... its about 30 pages
> and is available on the web sites mentioned earlier. I will grant you that
> the killing of Lisa was not in strict compliance with the tech, she was
> drugged with chloral hydrate....everything else though was right out of the
> HCOB package on the IR.
NO! In a case this far gone, you ALWAYS seek medical
attention
first! Not one single auditor on this list would
have placed a dehydrating, delirious PC who is
refusing to eat on a baby-watch and allowed her to die.
She would have been in the nearest emergency room
before you could say Xenu.
> >Treating her there instead of at a hospital
> >as called for by policy is just one small
> >out-point in a complete series which lead to her
> >death.
> Look..... if one sees this sort of total disaster, then goes fishing for
> some issue thats not an outpoint....and says 'lookie here. they did this
> part right'...... thats called obfuscating the issue..... its irrelevant.
> What is relevant is the long long list of crimes that lead to the long long
> list of criminal convictions.... and the long long list of suicides and
> deaths by hanging, gunshot or whatever...... thats the deal.
You are missing the point. She should have been in the
hospital
and received any assists/auditing/processing she needed
there.
This was a VERY improper handling of a PC, and you seem to
act as if Hubbard picked up a new body and personally
ordered this shit.
> I could find 10,000 things they did right..... the floors were undoubtedly
> vacuumed, the room was probably heated...... food was offered.... she wasn't
> beaten..... 10,000 things. I could find another 10,0000 things right
> about Jeffry Dalhmer (the canibal)..... he probably used clean knives,
> condoms, had a good freezer.....
No, the only thing that went right in this case was
that it was brought to trial by the family.
> Thats NOT relevant.....whats relevant is the long long list of crimes, ruin
> and disaster....... thats the issue, the rest is attempts to distract from
> the issue.
The relevance, is that none of those crimes would exist if
the
tech were REALLY being followed. The point of the whole
matter
is that the CofS is one giant do as I say, not as I do
operation.
Your attacks include all of us in the FreeZone because you
do not know how to differentiate between US and THEM.
> See that?
Do you see this?
> >> >Do you think it may take more an intensive? That was the LRH's gift
> >> >to Lisa after she donated close to 1/4 million dollars and half her life
> to
> >> >the cult..... the Introspection rundown....with chloral hydrate,
> straigth
> >> >out of the US army manual on how to break a person, and ruin them
> >> >utterly...... that was Hubbards gift to Lisa.....
>
> >Can you show us where Hubbard policy was followed,
> >NOT disregarded in Lisa's case? This like many of
> >the incidents leading to blown staff, etc....were all
> >out-tech, out-policy, in direct contradiction with
> >basic axioms, and codes of the auditor, the code of
> >honor....code of a scientologist. Out, Out, Out.
>
> True...totally true....actual fact..... sooth..... but you see the code of
> a scientologist was written as a smoke screen for evil acts.... it was not
> followed by hubbard at all.... ever...never. If you have not read the many
> accounts of those closest to him, and his own admissions in private mail
> that Gerry Armstrong got ahold of, of course you would be ignorant of these
> facts...... and you'd be saying it was not hubbard.... it was his SP staff.
As I mentioned above....I could care less if Hubbard
followed
his own words. If a Scientologist wants to make it go right,
he had better follow the tech and stick to the basics.
Once these are abandoned, you start getting the current
state of the
CofS.
The problem is who defines a squirrel? Who defines
Standard Tech?
> >it was an out-policy. Blind followers are simply
> >NOT desireable if you want to improve things.
> >People need to evaluate what they read, apply it
> >where it is NOT in conflict with personal ethics, or
> >the balanced good of ALL DYNAMICS. Not just the 3d.
>
> It seems you are trying to say that if policy were followed, and the tech
> were applied properly that the technology would be viable.....and that on
> that basis, we should try to reform the operation.
YES! I did get through there :).
> I would not disagree with that completely...... and you are free to try to
> reform the cult...... I had tried for 20 years myself, I'd still like to
> see them reformed and producing the best of what the tech has to offer.
OK
> I'm just not into making excuses for Hubbard...... he founded the bulk of
> the problems..... this of course is not evident completely the first year
> one walks away from the cult, but among those who have been out for awhile,
> probably 80% see hubbard as the founder of the bulk of the problem.
Wrong target. Tech not Tub ;-). I want the tech not the
idol.
> You wouldn't say, would you, that the man was irresponsible,,,, that is not
> responsible for his creation. I am afraid Hubbard created the cult very
> thoroughly, and very cunningly....... and ran it that way, with an 'iron
> fist in a velvet glove' for 40 years.
Well, I understand the discipline portion
having been in the army for 10 years. The
Navy must be much more strict in this regard.
A ship is a much smaller playing field.
I do not mean to make excuses....but I am
thankful for what he did. Hey, the sacrifice
of a few can lead to the victory of the planet.
bob
Lightnin80
In article <4.1.199901060...@mail.lightlink.com>, Christine
Norstrand <christine...@platinum.com> writes:
>>
>>>Processing which brings about balanced results in
>>>the three parts of existence ...Spirit mind and body
>>
>> Yeah definitely don't audit the Heart.
>>
>Yeah, you'll get jokes about assessing the organs if you come across with a
>real communication. Been there, done that.
>
>
>
Interesting thread, and an interesting ending as well, good cross section
of posters.
I re-read the entire thread this morning for some conclusion and there
just did'nt seem to be one that I could see....of course that don't mean
that there was'nt one, it just may have eluded me.
The shift seems to be to Allen's personality which I have monumental
dis-interest in.
I did see the beginnings of what might be some uniform code of
processors, healers,auditors, therapists etc....I suppose the first
thing would be to find some word that brings all these seemingly
related ologys and isms under one word, Shaman is one I like.
Has a bit more heart than Auditor or processor, priest I don't care
for because it just has the stench of too much dogma attached
to it.
Maybe I'm going a bit farther than the NG really wants anyway, after
all it is alt "CLEARING" technology.....but these words apply to
the activity and even if you don't like being called a witchdoctor you
are in a sense filling the same function within a given group.
Lightnin
P.Scott
Robert Hummels wrote in message <3694956C...@csi.com>...
>P.Scott wrote:
>
>> Robert Hummels wrote in message <3693366A...@csi.com>...
>> >P.Scott wrote:
>> ><snip>
Bob wrote:
>Here you begin your contradictions. His work was good for
>the
>first 10-15 years you state above....but was based on
>satanist
>crap (so really was not good) you then write.
Its like this it was good soup, good soup for sure, later
to be found with *cat turds in it.... later I find at least now,
that even some of the 'Good soup'.... like habituating
one to need the material (havingness), has what may
well turn out to be fatal flaws.
The discovery is an ongoing process....but in looking
at the roots, one is not suprised to see hidden rot high
avove them....carefully hidden rot now, floating to the surface
in big green blobs.
>The subject was the cadet orgs... everyone can have a bad
>day...or even 20 years worth of 'em. We need to look at
>what tech he was jumping into which blasted him off-base.
>He was NOT always like that. There were many incidents
>involved in those years that proved various points of his
>paranoia.
Hubbard would say you are being 'reasonable' about serious
.....er......out points.....I'd tend to agree. Hell man, people died!
Were hounded to death, driven to suicide (deliberately).... you have
apparently seen this data yet...the actual cult docs seized by the
FBI.... take a look.... those will change your view dramatically...as
will the Dandar civil filing in the case of Lisa McPherson.
>
>> Susan Meister shot between the eyes on his
>> boat with him on board....
>
>I think we already put this one to bed on ARS....and
>not in Hubbards cabin either.
Well many of us are not so sure, regardless, her death is right in the
middle of many more......a very very damaging picture when taken as a
whole...... sort of like the Mafia..... many of hits just can never be
confirmed....its just that we do in fact know the bigger picture.....and its
corruption to the core. The cult has a much worse and more pervasive
track record in many respects. Again, you may want
to actually read the affidavits of the ex's, hubbards early rants to the FBI
as he turned in his own staff for being communists and offered his personal
services in spying on his own staff !!! Very revealing material.... and
also the USGO and Hubbard docs seized by the FBI in the late 70's raid with
pick axes and battering rams into the cults major complex's in Los Angeles.
Without reading the cults own documents, truly one would not have a clue,
only the cult brainwash that 'nothing is perfect'....'we have changed'...'Oh
that was an SP we got rid of him'..... and finally "you are responsible for
us stealing your money and driving your friends to suicide with deliberate
reverse processing'
...... I am stunned by the rationalizations for this cults abject and
completely documented ruthlessness and evil.
>> and the litterally hundreds of reports about
>> his rages, drinking and heavy drug use..........
>
>Yes, and he was right...drugs and alcohol really
>fuck up a persons case. Or was he displaying anything
>different. Remember, I will not appologise for the
>man, however he did us a very big service in the tech.
Lets be a bit more accurate here....YOU think he did us a very
big service with his tech....... I think he built the worlds nastiest
trap with the worlds tastiest bait...... and he said so himself
many times with his favorite story of the sultans tent.
You just Loved the bait..... I see the trap and intent of placing
bait on the trigger...... I know you will not agree today, Heidrun did
not agree with these views early on either....but as time goes on
more and more of the lies and damaging tactics leak out, and
with each others help, we are discovering them. Heidruns last
remark about the person being actually bigger than his case, is
a brilliant insight....and the reverse of the brainwash LRH used to
trap people....... ACW had seen this years ago.... I just saw it when
Heidrun pointed it out...
As you come along in your personal processing and insights, these
things will begin to dawn on you too....... at that point you will not be
quite so forgiving of this man and his megalomanicacle attempt to
take over the world and 'destroy utterly" anyone who stood in his way.
Hubbard was a sicko Bob..... a drunk, a dope addict, a satanist....in short
he had some very very serious problems...... and some seriously
superb insights as well. For those, I thank the man profusely....and
credit him extensively in my Beyond the Black Magicians series.
>No one is always correct, or always perfect. Absolutes
>will not be obtainable in this Universe.
Well fine, lets just let it be an excuse for the most extensive criminaliity
ever witnessed in modern times by a church...or cult. I am asking you
bob, look at both sides.... and I am emphasising the evil side, because it
is evil that kills, and evil that hides, and because it has apparently been
hidden from you...... so I am pointing it out.
For the positive side...there is the Pilots superb work....Heidruns work,
Lamont Johnsons work, and that of many others..... and none of these
advocate 'and of course destroy the person utterly if possible'..... only
Elrong himself stooped into that dark pit.
>> and his roots,
>> with Jack parsons! (read parsons account of his association with
hubbard
>> in Babalon Working....Parsons was a credible person, a rocket fuel
scientist
>> at JPL no less, and of course an avowed satanist into creating ruin and
>> degradation... its a sickening book to read in many sections.)
>Why are you so offended by this? Do you believe in
>Hell forever? Death forever? If not, then WTF does this
>have to do with the tech?
Your remark comes from not having read Jack Parsons
stunningly remarkable book "Babalon Working" in which
he describes the satanic agenda and Hubbards roll in it.
You apparently are referring to some TV evangelest dogma
regarding these issue..... my views are covered at length
in the bm series.... too long to type again here.... lets just
say there is a dark side..... and we each get to choose or
not choose it.
If you are interested in what founds my views, it's in that
series......where I say also that I myself have only the
faintest clue....and undoubtedly much of the ill founded
This idea that we know something, Bob, is a bad mistake.
Usually those who choose the dark side, do so out of
ignorance, some of us having come back from that pit, one
we stepped into, or were drawn into, out of arrogance.... and
ignorance (hallmark personality characteristics)... yours
truly here, no exception to be sure.
>Who gives a rats ass if the
>process was thought up while trying to have sexual relations
>with three men and small farm animals! If it works......
>then I guess it works and damn the circumstances of it's
>discovery.
Bob, there will come a time when you will discover that context
defines the product........ until then, you will be saying what the
russian economists have been saying....'we would accept another
Hitler if he could pull us out of this economic mess'
That remark is from their ignorance of root causes..... an evil or perverted
root cause, cannot and will never, bear clean fruit....just corruption,
usually that looks like good fruit. Some of course eat the rotten fruit
until they die...... Germany did, the North Koreans are, the Maoists
did..... all gladly, to the bloody end.
I suggest when one sees evil.....he put the fruit aside, and start looking
at the roots. But of course these are not presented by the cult, just lies
and more lies.....(various web sites specialize in just cataloging the lies,
Bob, truth does not spring from a base of lies....it never has, it never
will...its impossible...... but apparent truth springs from the base of
lies...... and to see through that takes some real work, and time.
You are still apparently looking at the appearance of 'good fruit', I am
looking at the spawn of the that fruit....the evil product.... the cult.
Fortunately for you, you are young, and searching....... you will find the
truth. And I wish you the very best in that regard.....It will be YOU and
not me, who in the end, will be the beacon of light in this area, and I can
only wish you Gods speed in that progress.
It may very well not be possible to gain the key insights without having
first traveled the dark road for a bit, and even unwittingly defended it as
I had done for so many years...... one gains this vital personal level
insights in this regard.
>Your attacks include all of us in the FreeZone because you
>do not know how to differentiate between US and THEM.
No I think the FZ is doing one hell of a job..... its debugging the
tech, and exposing the curve balls and traps, more and more
each day..... serious curve balls, serious traps.....most founded
by LRH..... it is using the valid discoveries of LRH to forward
the valid aspects of his discoveries.
Its just that much of what the FZ thought was hotter than sliced
bread 5 years ago, it sees as reverse processing now.... very
damaging. And in another 5 years another huge batch of
sci fi curve balls will hit the toilet as the damage of following some
(but not all) of those paths are realized.
Meantime, the error will be staunchly defended to the death.
Thats the human way.
>As I mentioned above....I could care less if Hubbard
>followed his own words.
Then you'd follow a liar and hypocrit apparently,, or have I missed
something. Bob, no need to be defensive here....we were all sucked in by
his lies and promises....and false stats, and brainwash.... and it takes a
while to wash out....Ive been at if since 1986.....and more crap washes out
every day..... and the FZ even sees that is the case.... and so will you,
especially as you begin to quit defending your attachments to this man who
drank, drugged and lied himself into a mental basket.
He lied Bob....... take a harder look at the roots, and look for the error
behind the lies...... you will find many of his processes were very very
destructive in the final analysis..... like Heroin, the immediate effects
are nice..... the addiction, and long term effect is fatal.
You are still wanting to keep the fix going..... Bob, beyond that need, as
you evolve, there are REAL solutions, ultimate level insights.... and you
will see Hubbards fix for what it was.....a mix. much fatally flawed, some
darkly evil.
>
>> >it was an out-policy.
That was Hubbards cloaking devise..... just as "you need your next level"
was his cloaking device as one of his wonderful breakthroughs after another
ceased to provide lasting results. You are just repeating the cults line
in these matters for now.
>>Blind followers are simply
>> >NOT desireable if you want to improve things.
>> >People need to evaluate what they read, apply it
>> >where it is NOT in conflict with personal ethics, or
>> >the balanced good of ALL DYNAMICS. Not just the 3d.
>>
>> It seems you are trying to say that if policy were followed, and the tech
>> were applied properly that the technology would be viable.....and that on
>> that basis, we should try to reform the operation.
>YES! I did get through there :).
Well Bob, its not so much that you got through, its just that I have seen
and stated this all along. For a long time I wanted to reform the cult
too....even lately there is a pang of pain when I see an org close... it
saddens me. Then i think of the options, the FZ... and I am not so sad
anymore....and I think of Heidrun who is seeing more of the cults error and
devising oposite paths....and there is hope. Bob, two years ago you and
she could have had a duette..... now things are changing.
In 5 years from now you will be referrring newbie excultists to my posts and
telling them 'look read the FBI documents, read Phils posts' "wake up
smell the coffee"...... and they will be telling you that David Miscavige
saved the cult from squirrels who had changed Hubbards early bookss, but
that recently the original manuscripts were found, justifying the use of
chloral hydrate.....
And Bob, you will just say to him, as have said to at least 50 people over
the last 5 years.........' give it time, look at the data, think for
yourself....and one of these days the brainwash will wear off'....
I know, I had it said to me when I was defending the cult, thank God, i
began to look a little deeper..... and the truth is emerging.
P.Scott
>>> Susan Meister shot between the eyes on his
>>> boat with him on board....
>>
>>I think we already put this one to bed on ARS....and
>>not in Hubbards cabin either.
The cult also fairgamed her father almost to death for
years after he insisted on just seeing an autopsy report.
Fascinating isn't it....... how do you add this aspect into
the cults innocent scenario?
Phil Scott
P.Scott
P.Scott wrote in message ...
>>>> Susan Meister shot between the eyes on his
>>>> boat with him on board....
>>>
>>>I think we already put this one to bed on ARS....and
>>>not in Hubbards cabin either.
>
>years after he insisted on just seeing an autopsy report.
>
>Fascinating isn't it....... how do you add this aspect into
>the cults innocent scenario?
and it is also true that a few of those on ars were also on the boat at the
time Susan was found with the bullet hole between her eyes and not powder
burns on her forehead.....(she apparently had the worlds longest telescoping
arms)........ if a murder investigation is opened, things could get
exceedingly MESSY....so we do have some not so ill founded attempts to just
let it all fade away.... there is no statute of limitations on murder. If
more than one participated in a cover up (and the cover up was massive),
then conspiracy charges would be filed.... that could be expensive, even for
the 99% of the crew found innocent in the end.
Of all those on board Hubbard demonstrated the least concern for human life,
with the overboardings, some hitting the side of the boat on the way down,
bloken limbs in the process.......and putting children in the ships anchor
chain locker........Bob....dear friend.....do you have any faint notion of
the liabilities and the utter terror that breeds in a persons who knows what
would happen to anyone in the chain locker if the anchor pin was
inadvertently pulled?
So add all this up with Hubbards personally directed attempt to shudder the
grieving Mr Meister into silence..... and you get a picture of a real
psychopath, not dispelled by the way by those closest to him, now in the
freezone.
>Phil Scott
>
>
Homer Wilson Smith
>You wouldn't say, would you, that the man was irresponsible,,,, that is not
>responsible for his creation. I am afraid Hubbard created the cult very
>thoroughly, and very cunningly....... and ran it that way, with an 'iron
>fist in a velvet glove' for 40 years.
>Phil Scott
I believe the primary difference among the people who post there,
which really causes all the bickering, is what they think of Hubbard's
root *INTENTIONS*.
Some believe that Hubbard's intentions were good but were prone
to varying levels of aberration, exacerbated by the intentions and
competencies of others around him.
Other's believe that Hubbard's intentions were covert and evil,
and that he wrote good tech as a trap knowingly and willingly.
Good tech as a trap is on the face of it absurd, so if his
intentions were evil, he either wrote good tech in spite of himself,
or the tech is not just seriously flawed but 180 reverse vectored.
*THIS* is the underlying source of the in fighting that goes on
here.
Robert, and Ralph for example are very pro Hubbard.
Arnie, Phil and Joe Harrington are very anti Hubbard.
Me, Christine, Enid, and Acey see him as a fallible good guy.
It's Hubbard's INTENTIONS that are the problem.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>You are missing the point. She should have been in the
>hospital
>and received any assists/auditing/processing she needed
>there.
>This was a VERY improper handling of a PC, and you seem to
>act as if Hubbard picked up a new body and personally
>ordered this shit.
It's a common problem with people who can not discriminate
to blame the founder for the failings of his creation.
Doesn't help that the damning policies are written in stone etc.
But the real point here is that the introspection rundown should
be taken up line by line and criticized or approved for a new
better free zone version of it.
Pointing the finger at Hubbard or his churchers doesn't get to
the meat of the matter, is the Int RD worthwhile?
Homer
LR1467
>
> It's Hubbard's INTENTIONS that are the problem.
>
>
I don't think so. Blindly following and blindly bashing are alike EFFECT
activities. If one makes the tech one's own, whatever that tech may be, then
whoever wrote it first can have any intentions at all. Those don't have to be
anyone else's intentions, either. It is NOT true that one can take the tech
out of Hubbard but can't take Hubbard out of the tech, anymore than it is true
that you can take a guy out of the Church but you can't take the church out of
the guy. It just appears that way to those who have an a=a=a on it. I don't
have a problem with Hubbard's intentions. I don't think most of us do. It
perhaps appears that way perhaps because Phil (and some other guys with similar
views) gets responses to his posts. And Phil seems to have a problem with
Hubbard's intentions that he is trying to give to everyone else.
LR
P.Scott
>P.Scott (psc...@inreach.com) wrote:
>>You wouldn't say, would you, that the man was irresponsible,,,, that is
not
>>responsible for his creation. I am afraid Hubbard created the cult very
>>thoroughly, and very cunningly....... and ran it that way, with an 'iron
>>fist in a velvet glove' for 40 years.
>
>>Phil Scott
>
>which really causes all the bickering, is what they think of Hubbard's
>root *INTENTIONS*.
>
> Some believe that Hubbard's intentions were good but were prone
>to varying levels of aberration, exacerbated by the intentions and
>competencies of others around him.
Thats pretty much what I think, I also think almost all of his early tech
OK, dianetics was a bit of a wash, but the early scn tech was superb.
Then apparently in my view his aberations took over, he went psychotic,
dreamed up the sci fi stuff, and then evaluated that everyone needed to run
it..... he used heavy ethics to try to force that eval to work.
It didn't.
>
> Other's believe that Hubbard's intentions were covert and evil,
>and that he wrote good tech as a trap knowingly and willingly.
I think he wrote good tech with good intentions and then *used it, to bait
the money machine trap.... his justification: He stated in an HCOB or
HCOPL Organizations.... he said they were inherently bad, but necessary
for anyting to move into the future.... so he founded what he called a very
bad, but survivable organization. That turned out like much of his
stuff.... to be 100% true.
>
> Good tech as a trap is on the face of it absurd, so if his
>intentions were evil, he either wrote good tech in spite of himself,
>or the tech is not just seriously flawed but 180 reverse vectored.
He started off with the early 88008 series, with the PC larger than the bank
and able to handle it with these processes...... and many did. But then
they left to go grow daisys or build houses.....
So apparently he had a change of heart and started saying that the PC was
less than his bank! (or implied it effectively) and so needed an
auditor...so that together they would be greater than the PC's bank.... this
opened the door to lots of academies to train the auditors and lots of
auditing time to sell..... a very lucrative proposition.... also apparently
his original intent. "If you really want to get rich, start a religion"
LRH..... (so much for altruistic motives)
>
> *THIS* is the underlying source of the in fighting that goes on
>here.
I dont think so..... I think the underlying source is desperation for a
workable tech that some people they cannot create for themselves....so they
think the need Hubbard at this point....
I will grant you this..... I needed Hubbards tech and viewpoints and
understanding to finally see whats going on and how to resolve issues and
invent processes....Many on the NG are doing one hell of a job in that
regard.
Please notice....these are not in such severe defense of hubbard as those
who have not come up to create yet on the technology.... (ralph seems to be
an exception....but that seems to be changing lately as he may be having
some second thoughts about some of LRH's basic approaches)
>
> Robert, and Ralph for example are very pro Hubbard.
Well Ralph for sure, but Robert is doing a yoemans job of trashing Hubbard
tech by the phone auditing (which I think works better than face to face in
many cases).... and this two meter stuff.... which I think is eval for the
PC, and should not be done.....Hubbard would have Roberts bony ass thrown
overboard with the lea anchor tied around his neck, in the dark, at
sea...... with no witnesses.
> Arnie, Phil and Joe Harrington are very anti Hubbard.
Arnie was close to Hubbard, and developed a great distain as many who were
close to him did. Arnie is perhaps the most spiritually advanced person
I've met on the web.... quite accomplished in the OT abilities arena,
provably so. many times.... from is perspective, hubbards stuff has been
vastly surpasses.... and of course he is not impressed with the criminal
cult Hubby founded.
I however, actually hold hubbard in pretty high esteme, its just that I am
not hesitant to point out what I have come to see as real problems.
>
> Me, Christine, Enid, and Acey see him as a fallible good guy.
Thats not too far off from the truth, what I don't think you guys see, is
the dark side roots, and how that agenda .....has colored his work, much of
it black, with blood stains around the edges.
When I write my stuff I try not to put out both points of view in one
statement...... if I'm pointing out a key problem, as Heidrun has just done.
I point it out...with the ramifications of following that path layed out...
so the point is clear.
I comment quiet favorably on much of Hubbards work and credit him in my bm
script series, and elsewhere.....If were not for hubbard, I'd still be in
the soup.... and that is a fact.
Its just that his stuff cannot take a person out of the soup totally... its
flawed in key areas. Most of us have had to transcend hubbard to make
what further progress we have..... (LRH said that would be necessary,
natural and advisable in his early books....again he was correct...... only
later gross insanity led him to enter in total roteness, only one source,
and heavy ethics and "of course destroy the person utterly if possible"
Phil Scott
(snip)
>
> Homer
P.Scott
>>You are missing the point. She should have been in the
>>hospital
>>and received any assists/auditing/processing she needed
>>there.
>>This was a VERY improper handling of a PC, and you seem to
>>act as if Hubbard picked up a new body and personally
>>ordered this shit.
> It's a common problem with people who can not discriminate
>to blame the founder for the failings of his creation.
>
Hold it.... I dident blame hubbard, I just pointed out he was a blood
drinking satanist, alcohol adicted dope addict...who wrote "and of course
destroy the them utterly if possible" in regards to people who planned to
desert him as Lisa had apparently been planning.
The reader gets to decide if there is a connection.
> Doesn't help that the damning policies are written in stone etc.
True fact... please make a note of it.
>
> But the real point here is that the introspection rundown should
>be taken up line by line and criticized or approved for a new
>better free zone version of it.
That may be like trying bounce a dead cat.
>
> Pointing the finger at Hubbard or his churchers doesn't get to
>the meat of the matter, is the Int RD worthwhile?
I don't finger point at Hubbard. I criticise his tech and policy where it
can demonstably seen to be a problem.
Those defending the man see that as an attack..... It isn't intended as an
attack.. I do however intend total attack on the organization, I hope
its leaders go to prison.... and to the extent that Hubbard wrote the policy
and enforced it, even the early crimes, I am quite dissapointed in him. To
that extent.
Please don't try to paint me black and white on these issues....... I'm
various shades. depending on the issue.
Phil Scott
>
> Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>I don't think so. Blindly following and blindly bashing are alike EFFECT
>activities. If one makes the tech one's own, whatever that tech may be, then
>whoever wrote it first can have any intentions at all.
True in an ideal scene, but if something is written by Someone
who has rotten intentions from the word go, one is much more likely to
give it a critical eye before playing with it, than if there is even a
modicum of trust behind it.
Now me, I have very mixed feelings about Hubbard, regardless of
his background I have listened to enough tapes, read enough stuff, had
enough *FEELING* about the man to know there was basic decency
underlying his mad dog act.
Every time all the critics started to get me down, I would just
go listen to a tape and the basic decency of his voice and approach
would come back over me. He was *TRYING* man, He was trying, had a
GPM the size of mount everest, but he was climbing the damn bastard.
He got carried away with enemies, like I do, and he was tired of
being put down for no good reason other than he was right, so he
started to put others down back.
Kind of got the last laugh I guess, as the whole planet is now in
the Church's RPF, although I doubt he will be happy about it when he
returns.
Anyhow I think it makes a difference whether his original
intentions were good or bad. In other words did the good parts of the
tech from a good intention or an evil intention to trap?
All free zoners need to ask this until they are flat on it.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
> Thats pretty much what I think, I also think almost all of his early tech
>OK, dianetics was a bit of a wash, but the early scn tech was superb.
>Then apparently in my view his aberations took over, he went psychotic,
>dreamed up the sci fi stuff, and then evaluated that everyone needed to run
>it..... he used heavy ethics to try to force that eval to work.
Yeah so he became what he feared most, criminal, insane and at war.
It happened earlier than the sci fi stuff, it happened when the
auditor code went out of standard tech.
"We have the platens, why waste the pc's time making him
look for items, just have him run them" Clearing Course I believe.
So hurry perhaps took him over, didn't have time to let
pc's find their own items as he was doing in R6EW.
>> Other's believe that Hubbard's intentions were covert and evil,
>>and that he wrote good tech as a trap knowingly and willingly.
>I think he wrote good tech with good intentions and then *used it, to bait
>the money machine trap.... his justification: He stated in an HCOB or
>HCOPL Organizations.... he said they were inherently bad, but necessary
>for anyting to move into the future.... so he founded what he called a very
>bad, but survivable organization. That turned out like much of his
>stuff.... to be 100% true.
OK so much of Hubbard is self healing, that's part of the hint
that he was coming from a decent place, he set out the very tech
and the warnings to deal with what would happen if and when
aberration took him and everything else over.
You know don't you, that people trying to handle the Church from
the outside are using nothing but pure Hubbard plus some, right?
So railing about how about his intentions were etc, is acting
like the Church is now, rather than auditing the pc in front of you,
namely the Church. Put it into ethics, get tech in, in on yourself
and the Church, and audit the damn service fac thats making
everyone wrong out here.
The Church is in deep trouble if we just apply straight
Hubbarding standard tech, auditor's code and all. Its in worse
trouble with all these new advances that everyone is positing.
I think Hubbard will be pleased.
>He started off with the early 88008 series, with the PC larger than the bank
>and able to handle it with these processes...... and many did. But then
>they left to go grow daisys or build houses.....
I don't remember Hubbard *EVER* saying that the pc alone was
bigger than the bank, "We know for a fact that the pc can get himself
in too deep to personally get himself out of". Clearing Course
Hubbard himself, although he soloed alot, also put himself in
session with real auditors, that's an amazing feat to create the
auditor and then put yourself in session with them.
You know his feeling that the bank was bigger than the pc came
from his own experience with his own bank, I don't believe he just
made that up. He may have USED the fact later to aberrative
advantage, but he drew it from his own true experience with himself in
session, without his auditors he was sunk and he knew it.
In dianetics he talks about the channel that is better left
closed. In NOTS he says 'Yeah and here it is'.
So he knew about Behemoth.
>So apparently he had a change of heart and started saying that the PC was
>less than his bank! (or implied it effectively) and so needed an
>auditor...so that together they would be greater than the PC's bank.... this
>opened the door to lots of academies to train the auditors and lots of
>auditing time to sell..... a very lucrative proposition.... also apparently
>his original intent. "If you really want to get rich, start a religion"
>LRH..... (so much for altruistic motives)
I would say he wanted to survive, and he wanted everyone else
to survive, and making money is part of that.
>> *THIS* is the underlying source of the in fighting that goes on
>>here.
>I dont think so..... I think the underlying source is desperation for a
>workable tech that some people they cannot create for themselves....so they
>think the need Hubbard at this point....
OK, this is true, some people if you don't GIVE them any tech,
they don't HAVE any tech. That's the way it is with them.
>Please notice....these are not in such severe defense of hubbard as those
>who have not come up to create yet on the technology.... (ralph seems to be
>an exception....but that seems to be changing lately as he may be having
>some second thoughts about some of LRH's basic approaches)
As Ralph says, people attract like kind to themselves, people
they can help. Ralph and Hubbard seem to have a resonance, Ralph
seems to feel that Hubbard tech as he understands it was sufficient
for himself and those like him.
That's acceptable, right?
>> Robert, and Ralph for example are very pro Hubbard.
>Well Ralph for sure, but Robert is doing a yoemans job of trashing Hubbard
>tech by the phone auditing (which I think works better than face to face in
>many cases).... and this two meter stuff.... which I think is eval for the
>PC, and should not be done.....Hubbard would have Roberts bony ass thrown
>overboard with the lea anchor tied around his neck, in the dark, at
>sea...... with no witnesses.
Perhaps even Hubbard had something to learn.
If you believe in empathic telepathy, then Ducharme's approach
inherently makes sense.
>> Arnie, Phil and Joe Harrington are very anti Hubbard.
>> Me, Christine, Enid, and Acey see him as a fallible good guy.
>Thats not too far off from the truth, what I don't think you guys see, is
>the dark side roots, and how that agenda .....has colored his work, much of
>it black, with blood stains around the edges.
Well for me all I can see is the present time results. That's
pretty heavy on both light and dark sides, so yes you are right,
I don't know the past.
>Its just that his stuff cannot take a person out of the soup totally... its
>flawed in key areas. Most of us have had to transcend hubbard to make
>what further progress we have..... (LRH said that would be necessary,
>natural and advisable in his early books....again he was correct...... only
>later gross insanity led him to enter in total roteness, only one source,
>and heavy ethics and "of course destroy the person utterly if possible"
Correct.
Let me ask you a question.
What should one do with someone that is out to destroy one utterly?
Is it not acceptable to destroy them utterly first before they do
it to you?
Homer
>Phil Scott
>(snip)
>>
>> Homer
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
ho...@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
RDucharme
>
> I believe the primary difference among the people who post there,
>which really causes all the bickering, is what they think of Hubbard's
>root *INTENTIONS*.
>
> Some believe that Hubbard's intentions were good but were prone
>to varying levels of aberration, exacerbated by the intentions and
>competencies of others around him.
>
> Other's believe that Hubbard's intentions were covert and evil,
>and that he wrote good tech as a trap knowingly and willingly.
>
> Good tech as a trap is on the face of it absurd, so if his
>intentions were evil, he either wrote good tech in spite of himself,
>or the tech is not just seriously flawed but 180 reverse vectored.
>
> *THIS* is the underlying source of the in fighting that goes on
>here.
>
> Robert, and Ralph for example are very pro Hubbard.
>
> Arnie, Phil and Joe Harrington are very anti Hubbard.
>
> Me, Christine, Enid, and Acey see him as a fallible good guy.
>
> It's Hubbard's INTENTIONS that are the problem.
>
> Homer
I think it goes beyond just intentions. Aside from the question of
workability of the tech, I think it's a matter of gratitude vs. ingratitude.
If someone saves you from drowning in an Alaskan river and left you with
only a map, and you get pissed at him from then on because he didn't drive
you all the way home from there too, then I'd say the problem is yours, not
his. Some people seem to think Hubbard owed them the tech by their
birthright. I think this planet suffers from too many bellyachers and
ingrates and not enough people who know how to count their blessings and
make the most of them.
Robert
LR1467
>intentions were good or bad. In other words did the good parts of the
>tech from a good intention or an evil intention to trap?
>
> All free zoners need to ask this until they are flat on it.
>
I think if an individual freezoner needs to ask this, fine, flatten it. But
then don't forget the more important one - asking oneself what are one's own
intentions.
LR
P.Scott
>P.Scott (psc...@inreach.com) wrote:
>> Thats pretty much what I think, I also think almost all of his early
tech
>>OK, dianetics was a bit of a wash, but the early scn tech was superb.
>
>>Then apparently in my view his aberations took over, he went psychotic,
>>dreamed up the sci fi stuff, and then evaluated that everyone needed to
run
>>it..... he used heavy ethics to try to force that eval to work.
>
> Yeah so he became what he feared most, criminal, insane and at war.
> It happened earlier than the sci fi stuff, it happened when the
>auditor code went out of standard tech.
>
> "We have the platens, why waste the pc's time making him
>look for items, just have him run them" Clearing Course I believe.
Correct.
>
> So hurry perhaps took him over, didn't have time to let
>pc's find their own items as he was doing in R6EW.
>
>>> Other's believe that Hubbard's intentions were covert and evil,
>>>and that he wrote good tech as a trap knowingly and willingly.
>
>>I think he wrote good tech with good intentions and then *used it, to
bait
>>the money machine trap.... his justification: He stated in an HCOB or
>>HCOPL Organizations.... he said they were inherently bad, but necessary
>>for anyting to move into the future.... so he founded what he called a
very
>>bad, but survivable organization. That turned out like much of his
>>stuff.... to be 100% true.
>
> OK so much of Hubbard is self healing, that's part of the hint
>that he was coming from a decent place, he set out the very tech
>and the warnings to deal with what would happen if and when
>aberration took him and everything else over.
>
> You know don't you, that people trying to handle the Church from
>the outside are using nothing but pure Hubbard plus some, right?
More or less.... Hubbards management tech is mostly common
sense....(exceptions noted elsewhere)
>
> So railing about how about his intentions were etc, is acting
>like the Church is now, rather than auditing the pc in front of you,
>namely the Church. Put it into ethics, get tech in, in on yourself
>and the Church, and audit the damn service fac thats making
>everyone wrong out here.
I think you are being facetious here, you point out eloquently else where,
that *intention is everything.... and of course it is. He had stated some
very evil intentions from his satanic days in the 40's right on through
to...
"destroy them utterly if possible"....
Hubby had some evil intentions going on, and it laced his work with some
serious error..... error that is being conclusively more evident the longer
one looks, and as one begins to develop ones own technology...
( Heidruns latest is a prime example)
>
> The Church is in deep trouble if we just apply straight
>Hubbarding standard tech, auditor's code and all.
True.... it has both ethical and technical problems.....evaluating for the
PC, heavy ethics, and running from a PC condensed viewpoint, instead of the
reverse as ACW has been doing for 10 years or longer and as Heidrun has just
discovered .)
>Its in worse
>trouble with all these new advances that everyone is positing.
You are jesting I am sure.... the new advances are from the freezone, warts
and all, and there are some serious warts from where see things. it still
works at least 10 times faster and more stably than LRH standard tech.....
talk to any FZ case completion, or ex cultie repaired in the FZ, even
badly, and you will find the the FZ is gettng better results on
average....... some are getting incredible results, and its getting better
every day.
>
> I think Hubbard will be pleased.
Hubbard would be exceedingly pleased, now that its not his money walking out
of the orgs. What he started....... is working, big time.
>
>>He started off with the early 88008 series, with the PC larger than the
bank
>>and able to handle it with these processes...... and many did. But then
>>they left to go grow daisys or build houses.....
>
> I don't remember Hubbard *EVER* saying that the pc alone was
>bigger than the bank,
The tech in the 88008 series implies it, 'be exterior to that mass'.... can
be easily taken to 'spot that universe, be exterior to it" (my drills have
some instructions on how to handle if that becomes difficult as it can be in
some cases)
Both ACW, Myself, and Palmer have easily applied technology for attaining
that separation..... then permeation and resolution.
"We know for a fact that the pc can get himself
>in too deep to personally get himself out of". Clearing Course
Yes, as you point out earlier the CC happened after LRH decided to evaluate
for the PC....so naturally you could give the PC a list of items that would
key him in terminally.... and for sure that was the case..... now we needed
more auditors, more repairs, more training, and of course thousands of hours
doing the new OT levels. (the old ones that worked, ran quite fast).....
btw, the major change happened the same year (1972) Naval Intelligence and
the CIA began funding the SRI remote viewing experiments.
I can tell you one thing about Naval INtelligence.... if remote viewing
works, and it does, Naval intelligence would have demanded a monopoly.....
it appears they got it, by getting LRH to cancel the original OT levels.
>
> You know his feeling that the bank was bigger than the pc came
>from his own experience with his own bank, I don't believe he just
>made that up.
So far I have had no trouble in getting a PC exterior to his 'bank'..... I
don't think ACW or Palmer have either. Its really not that much of a
trick.
He may have USED the fact later to aberrative
>advantage, but he drew it from his own true experience with himself in
>session, without his auditors he was sunk and he knew it.
> In dianetics he talks about the channel that is better left
>closed. In NOTS he says 'Yeah and here it is'.
> So he knew about Behemoth.
This whole 'NOTS" mess does not have be this complicated.... its
complicated because LRH did it out ARC .... I have done the opposite, so
has ACW... in that fashion things go quite easily and powerfully, and the
results are stable.... and auditing errors are almost impossible to make.
>>So apparently he had a change of heart and started saying that the PC was
>>less than his bank!
Piss off 40,000 entities and yes, the case will get quite complex.
(or implied it effectively) and so needed an
>>auditor...so that together they would be greater than the PC's bank....
this
>>opened the door to lots of academies to train the auditors and lots of
>>auditing time to sell..... a very lucrative proposition.... also
apparently
>>his original intent. "If you really want to get rich, start a religion"
>>LRH..... (so much for altruistic motives)
>
> I would say he wanted to survive, and he wanted everyone else
>to survive, and making money is part of that.
His reg policy calls for finding or creating a ruin so people will buy
auditing.... thats an unethical way to make money, it encourages further
criminality.... so in the end you end up with an organization run by
criminals...
........ like DM and the boys.
>
>>> *THIS* is the underlying source of the in fighting that goes on
>>>here.
>
>>I dont think so..... I think the underlying source is desperation for a
>>workable tech that some people they cannot create for themselves....so
they
>>think the need Hubbard at this point....
>
> OK, this is true, some people if you don't GIVE them any tech,
>they don't HAVE any tech. That's the way it is with them.
>
>>Please notice....these are not in such severe defense of hubbard as those
>>who have not come up to create yet on the technology.... (ralph seems to
be
>>an exception....but that seems to be changing lately as he may be having
>>some second thoughts about some of LRH's basic approaches)
>
Ralph
>seems to feel that Hubbard tech as he understands it was sufficient
>for himself and those like him.
>
> That's acceptable, right?
Not really, Hubbies new standard tech (not the old stuff) but the standard
tech, does not work at all.... its a total disaster....a reverse vector.....
it puts people in the soup....maybe terminally..... so it has that problem
at least.
Take a look at Ralph.... a more white knuckled, uptight dude, would be hard
to find... and he's supposed to be a quintessential standard tech pro....
and I believe he is.... it isn't working.
>
>>> Robert, and Ralph for example are very pro Hubbard.
>
>>Well Ralph for sure, but Robert is doing a yoemans job of trashing Hubbard
>>tech by the phone auditing (which I think works better than face to face
in
>>many cases).... and this two meter stuff.... which I think is eval for the
>>PC, and should not be done.....Hubbard would have Roberts bony ass thrown
>>overboard with the lea anchor tied around his neck, in the dark, at
>>sea...... with no witnesses.
>
> Perhaps even Hubbard had something to learn.
>
> If you believe in empathic telepathy, then Ducharme's approach
>inherently makes sense.
It makes sense in that regard for sure, it does not make sense the way he's
applying it, steering the PC off of his own reads.
>
>>> Arnie, Phil and Joe Harrington are very anti Hubbard.
>
>>> Me, Christine, Enid, and Acey see him as a fallible good guy.
>
>>Thats not too far off from the truth, what I don't think you guys see, is
>>the dark side roots, and how that agenda .....has colored his work, much
of
>>it black, with blood stains around the edges.
>
> Well for me all I can see is the present time results. That's
>pretty heavy on both light and dark sides, so yes you are right,
>I don't know the past.
>
>>Its just that his stuff cannot take a person out of the soup totally...
its
>>flawed in key areas. Most of us have had to transcend hubbard to make
>>what further progress we have..... (LRH said that would be necessary,
>>natural and advisable in his early books....again he was correct......
only
>>later gross insanity led him to enter in total roteness, only one source,
>>and heavy ethics and "of course destroy the person utterly if possible"
>
> Correct.
>
> Let me ask you a question.
> What should one do with someone that is out to destroy one utterly?
These should be kept well nurished and supplied with ammunition... and given
sharper knives.
We need as many assholes as the world can generate.... without them there is
no freedom. One absolutely MUST have a worthy opponent, at the lower and
mid range levels especially..
Without Hubbard, and his grossly suppressive organization, I would not have
had the chance of a snowball in hell.
> Is it not acceptable to destroy them utterly first before they do
>it to you?
Of course not...... nothing beats a good gun fight.... especially a sneak
attack. Of course once the battle is on, one must engage and then
transcend it.... this can be quite difficult. Lacking that skill set
however, and requisite insights, one has not the faintest chance of making
it on the other side from what I can tell... that is the terrifying end of
the issue from my perspective..... what we face incarnated is baby steps...
of a vastly larger situation.
A situation few will ever resolve apparently.
Phil Scott
Robert Hummels
> P.Scott wrote in message ...
> >Bob wrote:
> >>>> Susan Meister shot between the eyes on his
> >>>> boat with him on board....
> >>>
> >>>I think we already put this one to bed on ARS....and
> >>>not in Hubbards cabin either.
> >
> >The cult also fairgamed her father almost to death for
> >years after he insisted on just seeing an autopsy report.
> >
> >Fascinating isn't it....... how do you add this aspect into
> >the cults innocent scenario?
Think about what you are writing here Phil.
Go through the scenario. If you were to
shoot someone on board a ship...would
the body ever be found? Would you just
hope and pray it would be accepted as a suicide?
Suicide brings along ALMOST as much negative
crap as a homicide. Do you really think for
a minute that a group with a policy to
"dispose of quietly and without sorrow"
for those opposed to it would flinch for
a minute at attaching 200 lbs of chain to
a body and dumping it at sea?
People fall overboard when seas get rough....
think about it my friend. Somewhere here
your scenario stops getting a result of
1+1 = 2.
> and it is also true that a few of those on ars were also on the boat at the
> time Susan was found with the bullet hole between her eyes and not powder
> burns on her forehead.....(she apparently had the worlds longest telescoping
> arms)........ if a murder investigation is opened, things could get
> exceedingly MESSY....so we do have some not so ill founded attempts to just
> let it all fade away.... there is no statute of limitations on murder. If
> more than one participated in a cover up (and the cover up was massive),
> then conspiracy charges would be filed.... that could be expensive, even for
> the 99% of the crew found innocent in the end.
> Of all those on board Hubbard demonstrated the least concern for human life,
> with the overboardings, some hitting the side of the boat on the way down,
> bloken limbs in the process.......
Phil, my Dad was in the US Navy. Do you know how they
taught the sailors to swim in boot camp? They threw
them off the ship and told them to swim to the dock.
They didn't ask first if they could swim either.
This was in the 1950's....how was Hubbard trained
by the Navy?
> and putting children in the ships anchor
> chain locker........Bob....dear friend.....do you have any faint notion of
> the liabilities and the utter terror that breeds in a persons who knows what
> would happen to anyone in the chain locker if the anchor pin was
> inadvertently pulled?
Hey, I have seen numerous stories about guys on Aircraft
carriers going below decks to the catapult room. Do you
have any idea how fast the counter-weight on a catapult
that can throw an F-16 into the air moves....and right
at you too. I am NOT agreeing with his tactics here.
Just want you to know he is NOT the only evil in the
world. I have admitted the stories about LRH are
probably true many times....now when will YOU
see and admit that the FreeZone is NOT the old man.
The TECH is not the old man...and can be used without
any of these horrid things you describe?
> So add all this up with Hubbards personally directed attempt to shudder the
> grieving Mr Meister into silence..... and you get a picture of a real
> psychopath, not dispelled by the way by those closest to him, now in the
> freezone.
A common practice in the business world Phil.
pay the guys out of court....or threaten them
to protect your image. No RTC copyright or
trade secrets on this one.
bob
> >Phil Scott
>
> >
> >
Robert Hummels
<SNIP>
> Bob, there will come a time when you will discover that context
> defines the product........ until then, you will be saying what the
> russian economists have been saying....'we would accept another
> Hitler if he could pull us out of this economic mess'
>
> That remark is from their ignorance of root causes..... an evil or perverted
> root cause, cannot and will never, bear clean fruit....just corruption,
> usually that looks like good fruit. Some of course eat the rotten fruit
> until they die...... Germany did, the North Koreans are, the Maoists
> did..... all gladly, to the bloody end.
>
> I suggest when one sees evil.....he put the fruit aside, and start looking
> at the roots. But of course these are not presented by the cult, just lies
> and more lies.....(various web sites specialize in just cataloging the lies,
> Bob, truth does not spring from a base of lies....it never has, it never
> will...its impossible...... but apparent truth springs from the base of
> lies...... and to see through that takes some real work, and time.
> You are still apparently looking at the appearance of 'good fruit', I am
> looking at the spawn of the that fruit....the evil product.... the cult.
No Phil....I am looking at the good fruits. You mentioned
them in the potion I snipped...Heidrun, ACW, LaMont,
Ralph,..
the list continues on and on. To make a good cheese you
have to let the sour milk age a little longer.
> Fortunately for you, you are young, and searching....... you will find the
> truth. And I wish you the very best in that regard.....It will be YOU and
> not me, who in the end, will be the beacon of light in this area, and I can
> only wish you Gods speed in that progress.
>
> It may very well not be possible to gain the key insights without having
> first traveled the dark road for a bit, and even unwittingly defended it as
> I had done for so many years...... one gains this vital personal level
> insights in this regard.
For some reason you believe I am defending the CofS,
or Hubbard. This is not the case. I just think
you have blasted into absolute land. There are no more
gradients in your VP. There is either massive evil (Hubbard)
od the other side. Remember there is a degree of good
even in the most evil act.
> >Your attacks include all of us in the FreeZone because you
> >do not know how to differentiate between US and THEM.
>
> No I think the FZ is doing one hell of a job..... its debugging the
> tech, and exposing the curve balls and traps, more and more
> each day..... serious curve balls, serious traps.....most founded
> by LRH..... it is using the valid discoveries of LRH to forward
> the valid aspects of his discoveries.
Your posts seem to say something else. You damn
anyone with a good word for LRH and run off screaming
evil, satan, evil, satan....there seems to be a stuck
A=A=A here. Your posts allude that
Hubbard = Scientology = Satanism = FreeZone.
> Its just that much of what the FZ thought was hotter than sliced
> bread 5 years ago, it sees as reverse processing now.... very
> damaging. And in another 5 years another huge batch of
> sci fi curve balls will hit the toilet as the damage of following some
> (but not all) of those paths are realized.
Hey....that is the reason to keep building a better bridge
right? No major argument if you see this....but your
posts do anything but point to the good of the freezone.
> Meantime, the error will be staunchly defended to the death.
> Thats the human way.
>
> >As I mentioned above....I could care less if Hubbard
> >followed his own words.
>
> Then you'd follow a liar and hypocrit apparently,, or have I missed
> something. Bob, no need to be defensive here....we were all sucked in by
> his lies and promises....and false stats, and brainwash.... and it takes a
> while to wash out....Ive been at if since 1986.....and more crap washes out
> every day..... and the FZ even sees that is the case.... and so will you,
> especially as you begin to quit defending your attachments to this man who
> drank, drugged and lied himself into a mental basket.
Look I think the Tech needs to grow and mature.
However it will NOT do this if we throw it out
as the ravings of a satan worshipping evil being.
This is why I say look, evaluate, does it follow
the basics....is it in ARC? If not...then away with it.
> He lied Bob....... take a harder look at the roots, and look for the error
> behind the lies...... you will find many of his processes were very very
> destructive in the final analysis..... like Heroin, the immediate effects
> are nice..... the addiction, and long term effect is fatal.
> You are still wanting to keep the fix going..... Bob, beyond that need, as
> you evolve, there are REAL solutions, ultimate level insights.... and you
> will see Hubbards fix for what it was.....a mix. much fatally flawed, some
> darkly evil.
What is true for you.......
> >> >it was an out-policy.
>
> That was Hubbards cloaking devise..... just as "you need your next level"
> was his cloaking device as one of his wonderful breakthroughs after another
> ceased to provide lasting results. You are just repeating the cults line
> in these matters for now.
> >>Blind followers are simply
> >> >NOT desireable if you want to improve things.
> >> >People need to evaluate what they read, apply it
> >> >where it is NOT in conflict with personal ethics, or
> >> >the balanced good of ALL DYNAMICS. Not just the 3d.
> >>
> >> It seems you are trying to say that if policy were followed, and the tech
> >> were applied properly that the technology would be viable.....and that on
> >> that basis, we should try to reform the operation.
>
> >YES! I did get through there :).
>
> Well Bob, its not so much that you got through, its just that I have seen
> and stated this all along. For a long time I wanted to reform the cult
> too....even lately there is a pang of pain when I see an org close... it
> saddens me. Then i think of the options, the FZ... and I am not so sad
> anymore....and I think of Heidrun who is seeing more of the cults error and
> devising oposite paths....and there is hope. Bob, two years ago you and
> she could have had a duette..... now things are changing.
I don't think so. Two years ago I was reading her posts.
I was not as vocal...because I was still on Scieno lines.
Heidrun is primarily devising different paths because
of what the CofS PR machine has done to public opinion
of Clearing. She and I both use ACW data as well.
> In 5 years from now you will be referrring newbie excultists to my posts and
> telling them 'look read the FBI documents, read Phils posts' "wake up
> smell the coffee"...... and they will be telling you that David Miscavige
> saved the cult from squirrels who had changed Hubbards early bookss, but
> that recently the original manuscripts were found, justifying the use of
> chloral hydrate.....
No, phil.....I will be offering them an alternative,
NOT slamming their goals and purposes with posts of how evil
the man they idolize was.
> And Bob, you will just say to him, as have said to at least 50 people over
> the last 5 years.........' give it time, look at the data, think for
> yourself....and one of these days the brainwash will wear off'....
I will give them the data, the positive data.
I will not sell a product by inflamatory blasts
directed at it's competition. I will sell on the
merits of the product I offer.
To preach only death and damnation gives
no hope for a brighter future. Those
old guys that wrote the new testement
knew this. Will you learn it?
bob
Free Scientologist
P.Scott
OK, you have not read the actual accounts Robert.......sounds like you are
making assumptions that are leading you to conclusions that do not fit what
happened. Who is telling you all this stuff anyway?
Robert Hummels wrote in message <3695CEC4...@csi.com>...
>P.Scott wrote:
>
>> P.Scott wrote in message ...
>> >Bob wrote:
>> >>>> Susan Meister shot between the eyes on his
>> >>>> boat with him on board....
>> >>>
>> >>>I think we already put this one to bed on ARS....and
>> >>>not in Hubbards cabin either.
>> >
>> >The cult also fairgamed her father almost to death for
>> >years after he insisted on just seeing an autopsy report.
>> >
>> >Fascinating isn't it....... how do you add this aspect into
>> >the cults innocent scenario?
>
>Think about what you are writing here Phil.
>Go through the scenario. If you were to
>shoot someone on board a ship...would
>the body ever be found?
The body was given to the spanish officials and an autopsy ordered not done,
then the body was burried in an unmarked grave, and the the father lied to
about these facts and told the body could not be located...... later the
father did manage to locate and recover the body...the whole time while
being ruthless harrassed by the cult.
Would you just
>hope and pray it would be accepted as a suicide?
>Suicide brings along ALMOST as much negative
>crap as a homicide. Do you really think for
>a minute that a group with a policy to
>"dispose of quietly and without sorrow"
>for those opposed to it would flinch for
>a minute at attaching 200 lbs of chain to
>a body and dumping it at sea?
There were too many witnesses on board to do that without fear of it
leaking, shipping it off was the tactic they chose, then lying to the
coroner and the father about the conditions of the death.
Bob, you are reaching pretty hard here and in other cases to justify the
cults little fiasco's..... it might bet better to just acknowledge that
there is a long and nasty pattern here with this cult..... many such
incidents.
Yes Bob, if it were JUST Lisa, or JUST Susan, or JUST Flo, or JUST Bob, or
JUST ....... ( its a long list Bob)...well then you'd have a case.... one
would look for a rational reason....but Bob...... it isn't just a few of
these.....Its MANY....with more criminal indictments now coming, and felony
convictions in the US and Canada.....Bob..... I really hate to tell you
this.......but its a criminal cult..... a real nasty criminal cult.
And our hero founded it...wrote the criminal policy, published most of it,
and kept the rest secret...... that is until the FBI raided the place with a
few hundred agents with pick axes and battering rams and seized the
exceedingly incriminating evidence that sent 11 senior cult staff to federal
prisons for YEARS..........LRH was an unindicted co conspirator Bob..
Do you know that that means? That means the process servers couldn't find
him! He hid out then until the day he died..... and this criminal intent
was certifiably behind the technology, an intent to stretch out auditing
time to get more money (thats in some HCOPL's Bob......look up related
topics in the subject index you will find them there)
Also Bob..... criminality you see, is a function of some key ignorances....
its not so much that the technology was founded to be damaging....it was not
in almost all cases. It was founded in an attempt to help....and much of
it did help.
Its just this ignorance that leads to criminality.. ... over valuation of
MEST, led hubbard to want money, and power, and to write processes that lead
a being inadertently to need the material universe as well..... and presents
Bob, that the material universe, (the persons case) is bigger than the
person! A 180 degree reverse vector into the PITS.
Thats the gift of Hubbards error Bob.
I'm just pointing it out. And that is why I point out the base of his
error.....godlessness, a valuation of the material over ones being.
Its all quite relevant, can you see that?
>Phil, my Dad was in the US Navy. Do you know how they
>taught the sailors to swim in boot camp? They threw
>them off the ship and told them to swim to the dock.
>They didn't ask first if they could swim either.
>This was in the 1950's....how was Hubbard trained
>by the Navy?
Well fine, the navy also ran the plutonium oxide experiments where several
tons were released from the Hanford Nuclear Weapons site (east washington
state, 530 square miles just west of the town of Richland.... even to day
consultants are bussed in under guards carrying UZI's).... This dust was
released so that the increase in cancer death rate could be monitored in the
down wind areas over the next 40 years..... Bob, that data was testimony
before congress in the early 90's! Its been on 60 minutes, it was grossly
criminal.... decent people do not do those things Bob.........Congress was
aghast!
I wouldn't defend them if I were you either Bob. You know I've had occasion
to do some serious business with two of Hyman Rickover's, old buddies,
retired Navy brass..... the man was a total asshole.
Bob Writes:
>now when will YOU
>see and admit that the FreeZone is NOT the old man.
>The TECH is not the old man...and can be used without
>any of these horrid things you describe?
Bob! Now where in the WORLD did you get the idea I do not support the free
zone, or the use of much of LRH's technology! I wrote a fucking book
based to a very large extent on Hubbards dramatic insights and advances!
Giving him credit! I support Heidrun, ACW (largely), Homer, Lamont
Johnson, many others delivering LRH tech (debugged of course) in the field!
You mistake persistent effort to point out the reasons behind the dramatic
failure of the cult (its related to LRH's core errors and intent), for not
appreciating the tech!!!!
Bob, when your own understanding of the technology comes up to the point
that you too will be able to create with it, and see the errors in it, and
advance beyond those errors, while still using much of what Hubbard so
eloquently presented..... you will not be as stuck to trying to justify his
gross and exceedlly destructive errors. I expect that soon you will
start looking for the physics (the mechanics of why and how these processes
work, and then seeing ways to advance beyond them..... at that point you
will cease to defend or excuse hubbards error or justify his crimes.)
>
>> So add all this up with Hubbards personally directed attempt to shudder
the
>> grieving Mr Meister into silence..... and you get a picture of a real
>> psychopath, not dispelled by the way by those closest to him, now in the
>> freezone.
>
>A common practice in the business world Phil.
>pay the guys out of court....or threaten them
>to protect your image. No RTC copyright or
>trade secrets on this one.
I don't understand this last comment, could you clarify. You weren't
saying that because threatening people happens in business that its OK for
the cult were you?
Very Best Regards, Phil Scott
>bob
>
>> >Phil Scott
>>
>> >
>> >
>
>
P.Scott
>> >Your attacks include all of us in the FreeZone because you
>> >do not know how to differentiate between US and THEM.
Pscott writes:
Not really, I am in com with many freezoners, I refer business to ACW,
Dennis, Heidrun, Lamont, Goldstein and a few others occasionally...
Pscott said:
>> No I think the FZ is doing one hell of a job..... its debugging the
>> tech, and exposing the curve balls and traps, more and more
>> each day..... serious curve balls, serious traps.....most founded
>> by LRH..... it is using the valid discoveries of LRH to forward
>> the valid aspects of his discoveries.
>
>Your posts seem to say something else. You damn
>anyone with a good word for LRH and run off screaming
>evil, satan, evil, satan...
Thats simply a false statement Bob. If that were a true statement I would
not be crediting Hubbard with as much as I do.....I would not be
recommending one study his work in my BM series....so Bob...what, please are
you getting at?
That I shouldn't point out that he boozed it up, did pinks and greys, was a
blood drinking satanist in the 40's and credited his satanist friends (in
the front of DMSMH up until 1972), and wrote and enforced patently criminal
policy?
Bob! Old buddy.... thats just the truth of the situation, the known
facts.... its called confront Bob.... one must see an entire scene in order
to fathom the truth. I present both sides of what i am able to see of
Hubbard..... much much credit, in writting now for 5 years, in my BM
series!...... and the other truths.
Why do you say I do nothing but criticise? When that is patently not true.
I even said in this post you just responded to (attached above) that I
credited him and validated the freezone for its advance.....
.there seems to be a stuck
>A=A=A here. Your posts allude that
>Hubbard = Scientology = Satanism = FreeZone.
Now where the hell did you get that idea Bob. I said Hubbard was a
satanist in the 40's and continued crediting his satanist friends through
the 70's...... now Bob, old buddy.... that IS a connection.
I don't see a problem with mentioning it. Some of hubbies tech is right
out of the OTO initiation rites ( he was an equal opportunity plagerists in
that regard) ..... and some of that stuff is still being used today by the
cult and the FZ.. !.. simple as that Bob. (The OTO was Crowley, the
satanists, creation....and Hubbard was a member, and wrote many of the
satanic iniitiations into Scientology practice... )...
Those are just the facts Bob..... if you don't like that, then you'd need
to go back and change history....gather up all the old LRH texts, and rub
out the list of credits that include Crowley.... and go through the earlier
LRH tapes (most are pre 70's anyway) and edit out those mentions to his dear
old Satanist friend and fellow conjurrer of the Whore of Babalon. I mean
Bob.... this stuff happened... and it continued to happen late into Hubbies
guru career. (Joh Ataks new book is pretty good on documenting all this,
you'd just love it Bob).
You didn't want me to mention it? I thought truth was the issue here, and
in life, and in case gain.... exact time place form and event.
Truth Bob is at the top of the chart..... LIes are at the bottom...... we
each get to pick wich we will be promoting.
Or were you going to say the satanic agenda is just another philosophy
Bob...? is that it.
Well then, maybe you should read Parsons Book, or stop by a satanist book
store, buy a few...get your little blood drinking kit.... and read the same
things that Charlie Manson read and followed when he sent his people out to
mass murder Sharon Tate and her unborn child ripped from the womb and then
stabbed..... and all the rest. (you were aware of course charlie was a
scientologist for a year or so didn't you..... his study of satanism led him
to hubbard..... Hubbard was big time into the satannist business, or were
you not aware of that?.)
Connections ARE relevant Bob... the fact you are offended by them is a
*good sign......it means you are up to recognising evil, many people aren't.
>> Its just that much of what the FZ thought was hotter than sliced
>> bread 5 years ago, it sees as reverse processing now.... very
>> damaging. And in another 5 years another huge batch of
>> sci fi curve balls will hit the toilet, as the damage of following some
>> (but not all) of those paths are realized.
>Hey....that is the reason to keep building a better bridge
>right? No major argument if you see this....
but your
>posts do anything but point to the good of the freezone.
Now Bob please,,, please lets stick with the truth here...... I've posted
replys to this NG many times advising the newbies to contact some of the FZ
people! I post many technical write ups, and I've credited Hubbard ....
You seem to just trying to paint a bad face, on my expose here, ..... Now it
is true, very true....that I am doing the best expose on Hubbard that I
possibly can. But thats just truth Bob.
If I ever post anything about hubbard that Is not true..... if ever I do
then I hope to be corrected. So far I stick to what has come out in court,
or from Hubbards own mouth.
Its just that what I have posted as unflattering as it is, happens to be
the truth..... I suggest you factor that in with your overall assessment of
the man....and the situation.... and take a closer look at his glorious
technology (about 50% world class advance, and about 50%.....er...
problematical, some fatal ..... Heidrun has addressed some of those issues
this week.)
Earlier you made the most stunningly mind blowing remark I have ever seen
on the NG..... You said you did not care what Hubbards intentions were, as
long as his tech worked! (paraphrased)...... as you come along Bob....you
will see the fatal liabilities in that view point. Tell that to your CO,
and see if he thinks intentions are not important.
Intentions Bob, are the most important issue going...the base of all
activity... everyting. Hubbard said so too... they are the base of
posutlates, and outcomes..... evil intentions ruin things, while purporting
to fix things. Bob...
Hubbard had his share of evil intentions... he signed his letters with 'Love
Ron' and wrote hundreds of pages of policy that is basically about "....
destroy the person utterly if possible".....
You keep saying show me the policy and then when give you the policy I never
hear your response to that.... I dont see you have read the factnet files on
the subject....Bob if had even skimmed those files...you'd be singing a
different tune.
Ive spent hours typing up "the fair game policy" its in the Pre 1975 green
vols, (and still in practice).... I invited you to go to www.factnet.org,
a finger click away, and look at the FBI files with hundreds of pages of
criminal Ops and policy written by LRH personally..... with the stated
intent to destroy those who disagreed with him....but no comment on that
from you Bob....just a repeat that I only criticise.... when in fact I have
written perhaps as much, or more, technology to this NG as top 10% of
techical posters!
*********
Its those who *don't post technical data I notice, that criticize me, for
posting both the technical posts, and the expose's of hubbard.
Now isn't than an interesting phenomina Bob?
***********
Bob I state the facts is all the good facts and the dirty facts. You
just seem to wish to obviate the dirty facts and say they are
irrelevant...... Bob the dirt is relevant, its real relevant, its the dirt
that created the cult,and its the cult that killed Lisa, and its the cult
that has been out trying to ruin its critics.....
But, Hubbard, yes he did some remarkably good things too, ( I advise one to
study that work in the bm scripts 1,2)
Bob Hummels makes the following remark:
>> >As I mentioned above....I could care less if Hubbard
>> >followed his own words.
(Gasp) You mean Bob that character doesn't count, and that bad character
founds good products...and that you'd follow bad character!
When a man does not follow what he preaches, he's a hipocite Bob....Hell
man, thats the definition of the word!
No integrity Bob.... and in Hubbards case, a drunk and doper a good part of
the time.....and he advocated extreme criminal acts Bob......
But let me get this straight Bob, you don't care about what he did to
others......... just as long as you can have his mind fuck run on you.....
is that it Bob?
I remain stunned by your remark....
>> Then you'd follow a liar and hypocrit apparently,, or have I missed
>> something. Bob, no need to be defensive here....we were all sucked in
by
>> his lies and promises....and false stats, and brainwash.... and it takes
a
>> while to wash out....Ive been at if since 1986.....and more crap washes
out
>> every day..... and the FZ even sees that is the case.... and so will you,
>> especially as you begin to quit defending your attachments to this man
who
>> drank, drugged and lied himself into a mental basket.
>
>Look I think the Tech needs to grow and mature.
>However it will NOT do this if we throw it out
>as the ravings of a satan worshipping evil being.
We are not Bob, relax.... hell some on the NG just love Crowley...they want
more Crowley, not less.... so even much of the satanist stuff stays.... it
will be with us always Bob, relax.
In the end Bob it will boil down to this, each idiot to his own poison.....
who knows Bob, maybe I'm wrong about the satanists, Charlie may have been
just trying to bring about the second coming of Christ by ripping Sharon
apart and having his followers drink her blood. (and that of the unborn
child)... Hubbards buddy tells all about what a great activity that is in
his book...."Babalon Working"...(Jack Parsons)... but then who knows, many
people are not offended by that..... maybe you won't be either, Hubbard
apparently wasn't.
You know Bob, I've actually gotten email defending mister Manson and the
killings on that basis..... hell there thousands of people who think that
way Bob..... You are not alone in not wanting the satanist stuff to get out.
Its just that the truth, is all that will ever save your ass in the
end....the whole truth...... and hubbard had hidden a lot of it........
naughty naughty.
I suggest *you dig for the truth, and let the cards fall where they
may..... a person of your intelligence and drive will go far indeed on that
program....
but it takes the strength to face ones dearly held ideas....and look for the
lies there-in..... and trash the garbage.
( none of us have any shortage of severe miscomprehensions)..... One needs
to just keep digging for more and more truth.....no matter what. It's the
ONLY solution in the final analysis.
Hows that for an absolute Bob... the ONLY way. Truth. Thats a point
worth meditating on as you decide that hubbards lies had nothing to do with
the technology.
If you are into little blue men, flying saucers, and satanism, you may wish
to read all about it at www.brotherblue.org. it's a satanist site,
braggs about the hubbard connections, (and has the latest data on SRI
experiments etc.)....You'll need a strong stomach though Bob, keep a barf
bag handy.
Not looking at anything, expecially the dark side is fatal....believing in
something from the dark side root is even more fatal......and that's why I
pound the drum so heavily on these dark side roots..... original intentions,
the intentions expressed in policy.
Intentions are everything Bob.... intentions found the product..... no
lasting good, springs for corrupt intentions.
>No, phil.....I will be offering them an alternative,
Good... I think thats wonderful.
>NOT slamming their goals and purposes with posts of how evil
>the man they idolize was.
Mark my words, if you stay with it, you will be telling them that Hubbard
made some serious mistakes..
Whether you ever come up to being able to see the evil inherent in being a
satanist, is another issue..... some never do, they think satanism is just
fine, and Charlie was an aberation.
You of course are welcome to form your own conclusions, as we all are.....
myself I am just stating the known facts, and inviting you to read the books
these men wrote, and examine the deeds they have done....and then sort it
out for yourself
>I will give them the data, the positive data.
>I will not sell a product by inflamatory blasts
>directed at it's competition. I will sell >on the merits of the product I
offer.
BOB! You think I am slamming the 'competition' so I can sell off the merits
of the 'product' I offer.!!!
... Boy, are in for a surprise..... I send PC's to these people you call
my competition!
I do not even sell my services, I do not even accept donations. When
someone comes to me, for what I have to offer, I refer them to the BM
scripts homer roboposts....I do that all the time in my posted remarks!
When someone comes to me for services, and refuses to go away, I tell em to
fly in and rent a hotel room, and I will work with them for two hours a day
for a week or so... I have not charged anyone yet. (I'm in the engineering
business for a living).
So you thought I was so low as to be making false criticisms to hurt others!
I am dissapointed in that.
>
>To preach only death and damnation gives
>no hope for a brighter future.
Bullshit Bob..... what do you mean 'only' have you not read my several
hundred techical posts! What is this 'only' remark Bob.
The BM series covers a lot of the the technical issues and presents some
quite liberating drills one can do....I post more technical data than 90% of
the posters here.... and 500 times more technical data than you have ever
posted!!!
So what are your remarks all about.... it seems you just want me to cease
posting the truth about Hubbard..... thats on the wrong path Bob....Life is
toward truth, not lies and coverups.
Phil Scott,
world class chef.
(Did you see the response to my Fried egg recipe Bob)
\
>
>bob
>Free Scientologist
>
Robert bob Hummels
Phil,
I think I should answer each point here.....
but what all I want to say can be summed up
into a standard Army saying.
It goes like this Phil.
One awe shit destroys a hundred
atta boys.
Every post you make with a comment about
the "good tech" of LRH, is counteracted
with 10-12 awe shits. One comes away feeling
dirtied by any association with the tech,
and LRH.
It all just indicates to me as a wrong target.
Sure, LRH was a bad boy. At least he was wise
enough to know this. He gave us the tech to
handle him in spite of his out-points.
To reach out through all the crap he was
blasted with in an attempt to keep US from
feeling the rage of that same inferno. To
try and smooth the path avoiding the larger
pitfalls that could only have been discovered
as he personally struggled through them.
That all takes a much larger being than you
care to give credit to.
Yes, some of the traps were NOT uncovered.
He thought he had his back covered...and
then the plot struck cutting his comm lines
and dumping him beyond the reach of those
who really could have stopped the coup.
I am NOT denying the out-points you bring
up. I am NOT defending those out-points.
The goal is to take the workable tech and
bring it forward, then to continue the
quest for a better way.
You hate it when I point this out, but this is
about the tech, NOT the man.
This held-down seven of satanism
seems to have you positioned at effect.
Get exterior to it. Get some cause
back in place over this stuff.
Just one small additional point.
We tend to attack a subject based
on our own overts. This might be one
to add to your list of "I really
ought to give this some thought"
subjects.
Your obsession with the whole subject
of satanic influence is quite scary.
I am far from being a trained C/S,
but when I hit a stop like that in my
own solo auditing, it means a whole shitload
of charge is about to come crashing through.
An obsession is an abberation. You are being
placed at effect not cause. Your only way out
of it is to go through it. Quit stopping the
process before EP. Run this shit out Phil.
ARC,
bob
P.Scott
Robert "bob" Hummels wrote in message
<369fe470...@smtp.site1.csi.com>...
>On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:43:41 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Phil,
>be summed up into a standard Army >saying.
(snip.)
.. naw Bob I think I'd rather just have you address the issues as you
mention above...... that way the issues get addressed..... by speculating
on my case condition, or my ancestry, we get off the subject....
you can see how that would be I'm sure..... Hubbard would not want us to get
off into that. Q and A he calls it.
Phil.
Ralph Hilton
(Robert "bob" Hummels) wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:43:41 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Phil,
>I think I should answer each point here.....
>but what all I want to say can be summed up
>into a standard Army saying.
There's no need to quote all of Phil's garbage in your reply.
He is below rationality. He needs a bpc assessment. He is a very good
example of what was discussed in a recent thread about auditing over an ARC
break.
I would suspect that his bpc is the contacted yet undisclosed overts of his
own in relation to satanic activities.
--
Ralph Hilton
http://Ralph.Hilton.org
Heidrun Beer
>Bob Hummels wrote:
>>> >Your attacks include all of us in the FreeZone because you
>>> >do not know how to differentiate between US and THEM.
>
>
>Pscott writes:
> Not really, I am in com with many freezoners, I refer business to ACW,
>Dennis, Heidrun, Lamont, Goldstein and a few others occasionally...
Dennis, a freezoner...?
Heidrun Beer
Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
http://www.sgmt.at
RDucharme
Fascinating thought, considering the things people rant and rave endlessly
about are so often the very things they're most guilty of themselves.
Robert
RDucharme
>On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:43:41 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Phil,
>I think I should answer each point here.....
>but what all I want to say can be summed up
>into a standard Army saying.
>
I concur with most of what you say here. I think Scott's hidden agenda is
to veer potential seekers away from clearing tech, but pretends to be a free
zoner so he can have a platform to preach his gospel of hate from.
Robert
P.Scott
Heidrun Beer wrote in message <369af3eb...@mail.magnet.at>...
>On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:42:22 -0500 (EST), P.Scott wrote:
>
>>Bob Hummels wrote:
>>>> >Your attacks include all of us in the FreeZone because you
>>>> >do not know how to differentiate between US and THEM.
>>
>>
>>Pscott writes:
>> Not really, I am in com with many freezoners, I refer business to ACW,
>>Dennis, Heidrun, Lamont, Goldstein and a few others occasionally...
>
>
>Dennis, a freezoner...?
Dennis Alsop... stockton California.
Dennis Erlich is specializing in 'group auditing' on the 10th dynamic...
along with a few other guys.
Phil
LR1467
> I think Scott's hidden agenda is
>to veer potential seekers away from clearing tech, but pretends to be a free
>zoner so he can have a platform to preach his gospel of hate from.
Spot on, Robert. Whatever Phil's case phenom is, his posts are DELIBERATE. He
is doing exactly to any "potential clients" of practitioners on this NG what he
so loudly accused Sarah of doing to him a while back. The overt speaks (in
this case VERY) loudly in accusation.
Perhaps he should give this all up - and get a cooking show as CBW suggests.
LR
LR1467
>.. naw Bob I think I'd rather just have you address the issues as you
>mention above...... that way the issues get addressed.....
Don't buy it, Bob. This is how he gets more spewing space.
LR
Stefan Siegmann
poor boy!
Stefan
LR1467 <lr1...@aol.com> schrieb in Nachricht
19990109035148...@ng138.aol.com...///
>Phil wrote:
>
>>.. naw Bob I think I'd rather just have you address the issues as you
>>mention above...... that way the issues get addressed.....
>
Sarah Hefver
> Dennis, a freezoner...?
I think he means 'Pip',not Dennis E.
Sarah
Robert bob Hummels
>Robert "bob" Hummels wrote in message
>>On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 21:43:41 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>Phil,
>>be summed up into a standard Army >saying.
>
>
>
>. naw Bob I think I'd rather just have you address the issues as you
>on my case condition, or my ancestry, we get off the subject....
No Phil....your case condition IS the issue.
Anything else is just edge dressing. If you
want a chance to repeat your rant I am sure
you wil find a better excuse than answering me.
>you can see how that would be I'm sure..... Hubbard would not want us to get
>off into that. Q and A he calls it.
No Phil. Q&A has nothing to do with it.
Do you have anyone in your area to put
you on a meter and look at this area?
I would look a bit closer if I was you.
Every post of yours I answer comes back
with the same reply...77777777777777777
777777777777777777777777777777777777777.
I am sure we can locate a FZ auditor to
give you a hand. Willing to take a look?
ARC,
bob
>Phil.
>
>>
>
Lightnin80
In article <1999010907...@netcom8.netcom.com>, "C. B. Willis"
<cbwi...@netcom.com> writes:
>
>Robert writes:
>: Fascinating thought, considering the things people rant and rave endlessly
>: about are so often the very things they're most guilty of themselves.
>
>
The greater the love the bigger the scorn, as for guilty, I'd say thats
it's big enough and long enough to include just about everyone having
had their turn to be an LRH type character complete with a cast of characters
a planet to clear or save or whatever.
I never knew LRH personally, he had some answers and he had
some techniques that produced incredible spiritual experiences.
Native State, Exterior and keyed out to name a few.
Lightnin
Christine Norstrand
>I refer business to ACW,
>Dennis, Heidrun, Lamont, Goldstein and a few others occasionally...
Dear LaMont, Acey, Heidrun, Mike, and few others,
I'm interested. Have you received referrals from Phil? Have they been
service-purchasing referrals? or time and energy sucking lampreys? Have
any of you a) made a dime from a referral from Phil, or b) delivered a
complete service that actually resulted in a changed condition for the pc
referred by Phil?
Time with a phone growing out of your ear doesn't count (except for Robert,
who has an actual patter that goes beyond "listening").
Love,
Christine
Heidrun Beer
>
>
>>I refer business to ACW,
>>Dennis, Heidrun, Lamont, Goldstein and a few others occasionally...
>
>Dear LaMont, Acey, Heidrun, Mike, and few others,
>
>I'm interested.
I'm not interested. If a discussion forum can't be used for
discussion, and if people who discuss on topic (occasional
kitchen recipes tolerated) are being censored, then what
is it good for?
A train is made for travelling, a cooking pot is made for
cooking, and a usenet newsgroup is made for discussion. So?
>Have you received referrals from Phil?
Why should this be relevant? Sorry but I can't follow.
A.C.T. is not a business newsgroup, and getting business
is not the purpose of discussion on A.C.T. The purpose
is to connect with technically interested people, learn
and/or teach. Whether Phil or anybody else refers business
to me, is not the point. The point is whether they
contribute to technical discussions or not.
Alan Walter
Christine Norstrand wrote:
> >I refer business to ACW,
> >Dennis, Heidrun, Lamont, Goldstein and a few others occasionally...
>
> Dear LaMont, Acey, Heidrun, Mike, and few others,
>
> I'm interested. Have you received referrals from Phil?
No.
Quite the reverse, I know of 1 person who visited Dallas from overseas who was
warned not to come by and visit with me, so she did not visit. She regrets not
having done so. She is from South Africa.
There was another from the US who told me Phil had warned her about connecting
to me.
I know of no referrals from Phil that have bought any services, though it is
possible. Perhaps Phil can e-mail me privately with the names of those he has
referred and I can check with the center if they have taken any services.
Alan
RDucharme
>Robert writes:
>: I think [Phil] Scott's hidden agenda is
>: to veer potential seekers away from clearing tech, but pretends to be
>: a free zoner so he can have a platform to preach his gospel of hate from.
>
>The black magicians series has plenty of tech,
He adds enough tech to make himself relatively credible until the next
outburst of venom. That's part of the insidiousness of it all. He uses
tech knowledge to convince people he knows what he's talking about, then
slams them with his negative posts. I believe it to be done deliberately
and with malicious intent. Anybody who has a fairly good grounding in the
tech can easily see through this, I'm just concerned about those who are not
yet to that point.
>if you use the term
>free zone in a very loose kind of way, as any ilk of clearing,
>practitioners not necessarily affiliated. And Phil is right, he has
>posted more tech over the years than several posters in this forum.
Which isn't saying much if anything.
Robert
RDucharme
>
>: >suspect that his bpc is the contacted yet undisclosed overts of his
>: >own in relation to satanic activities.
>
>: Fascinating thought, considering the things people rant and rave endlessly
>: about are so often the very things they're most guilty of themselves.
>
>connection with what they speak against, they just see something that is
>not true and/or workable on a small or large scale. You're implying
>something very derogatory here, without proof or particulars. One doesn't
>have to be a tyrant to speak against tyranny, or a murderer to speak
>against murder, etc. The huge amount of charge on the subject suggests
>there MAY have been some personal past track with the subject, on any
>flow. But imagination about extrapolating something undesirable into the
>future, especially when writ large in society, is sufficient to prompt a
>person to speak out against it - that's the psychic exercise involved in
>applying Kant's Categorical Imperative.
>
>- CBW
All that thinking-level rationalization aside, the overt does speak loudly
in accusation. All one has to do to observe this is to listen to anybody
riding a negatively emotional hobby horse on any subject and observe that
person's usual mode of operating as a comparison.
Robert
Robert bob Hummels
>Robert writes:
>: I think [Phil] Scott's hidden agenda is
>: to veer potential seekers away from clearing tech, but pretends to be
>: a free zoner so he can have a platform to preach his gospel of hate from.
>
>It's possible, but I don't see that's what's going on here.
>The black magicians series has plenty of tech, if you use the term
>free zone in a very loose kind of way, as any ilk of clearing,
>practitioners not necessarily affiliated. And Phil is right, he has
>posted more tech over the years than several posters in this forum.
The problem is NOT the tech he posts CBW.
The problem is that for every bit of tech
he also dumps an inordinate amount of Hubbard
the satanist posts.
This causes the effect I mentioned in my post.
That awe shit blows all his tech out the window.
To mention these connections, or give the URL to
find more info is one thing....but to attempt to
drown out every discussion started with ancient
history from the 40's that has nothing to do with
the discussion is a problem. He has chosen me
as a target. I know, I pulled it in by answering
his anti-Hubbard posts. But I have a really hard
time sitting here and letting him give the impression
to any newbies/lurkers to ACT that ALL LRH was about
was enslaving the world through some satanic ritual.
He always claims to give LRH credit. A small salute
to LRH followed by pages of "that evil satanic being"
posts. His praise is just a tactic to get the unwary
off guard and then clobber them with this shit.
I myself don't post tech. I am NOT a tech finder.
Am not that far down the path....in fact, I don't
even attest to the state of clear yet...but this
ploy by him is so obvious, it really pisses me off.
I apologise to Clear-l for having pulled this in on
the group, but I feel Phil needs to face what he
is doing. If he sees it, and still wishes to
continue, then fine. That is his choice. At this
point, I really feel he believes what he posts,
even though he doesn't realize where he is going wrong.
It was brought up to me in a private Email
that perhaps we should hold a comm-ev on Clear-l for
old Phil, somewhat along the lines of what happened
with Koos. I tend to agree more with Ralph though.
He needs to get back in session.
Although his ranting is leading some of the lurkers
out there to believe in SPs.
>I say this knowing that Phil has killfilled my address.
You know also that that is in no way
a safe haven either :).
bob
>
>- CBW
Christine Norstrand
>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999 11:27:00 -0500 (EST), Christine Norstrand wrote:
>
>
>Why should this be relevant? Sorry but I can't follow.
He made a claim. I want to know if it's true.
1+1
Christine
Christine Norstrand
>
>The problem is NOT the tech he posts CBW.
>The problem is that for every bit of tech
>he also dumps an inordinate amount of Hubbard
>the satanist posts.
>
recipes?
I really don't want to segueway into the annual Good / Evil dichotomy
discussion. For myself, I don't care if Hubbard did have a personal
Satanic era; I'm sure that wasn't his ideology when he died (far too stuck
on himself to worship the personification of evil, truth be known). Making
a big deal of it says: "Don't look over there!", and empowers the unwanted
experience. This isn't a personality flaw in Phil; it's built into the
worldview. Worshipping a personification of what one considers pure evil
(Satan, a car named Christine) is far more honest than the other things
people sometimes center their lives around while pretending to be "good".
On the other hand, Vishnu, I'm willing to put up with a lot of "I'm older
than you and I know it all" and even a whole lot of ellipses from Phil
because he says things such as:
"Apparently there is something about putting ones life on the line, and
having to dominate against real power to survive, that breeds integrity in a
man, at a level most cannot even fathom...... a priceless gift."
But the "most cannot even fathom" stuff just grates me, and I think he's
more stuck on himself than Hubbard was, as though he's attained some
phenomenal state and he's here to evacuate his pearls of wisdom. He has as
much as said so from time to time.
I am much more likely to listen to Homer or CBW at the other end of the
spectrum. They don't feel the need to put on airs.
Christine
Robert bob Hummels
>
>Bob H. writes:
>: The problem is NOT the tech he posts CBW.
>: The problem is that for every bit of tech
>: he also dumps an inordinate amount of Hubbard
>: the satanist posts.
>
>that the tech is vibrationally or historically tainted by
>the wild magickal goings-on Hubbard and Parsons were involved
>with in the 40's. Phil, what's your stand on this?
>
>Can we actually and not only logically separate the commands
>and questions of Hubbard's tech from Hubbard's other interests
>and personal history? If we can actually make this separation,
>then the Hubbard and satanic rants are off topic for ACT.
>If we can't or are not, then they may be on topic for ACT.
Yes, I think this is where we reach the
break-point.
>It may come down to the individual practitioner of a piece of
>tech doing his own cleanup before using, something like cleaning
>the energies off of a piece of formerly-owned jewelry before
>wearing it, which is itself a magickal, OT-type action considered
>basic in popular metaphysics.
Interesting thought. I was pushing a version
of this at Phil perhaps. I think the tech needs
to be evaluated in terms of the SCN basics.
Any policy/process that violates a basic is
of course out-tech. Then again there are exceptions
to every rule right ;-).
>
>: But I have a really hard
>: time sitting here and letting him give the impression
>: to any newbies/lurkers to ACT that ALL LRH was about
>: was enslaving the world through some satanic ritual.
>
>I find regulars on clear-l/ACT overly self-conscious and
>sensitive. If a newbie can't take the initiative to do
>his own research with a practitioner and draw his own
>conclusions, then maybe he's not ready in fact at that time,
>despite protestations to the contrary.
It is not so much the newbies. I was thinking in
terms of Cof$ folks looking for a FZ tech terminal.
One look at Phils Hubbard bashing, and they will
head for the hills. They need to get over the idol
worship instilled by the Cof$...but he blasts
them in the face with it.
>
>: I apologise to Clear-l for having pulled this in on
>: the group, but I feel Phil needs to face what he
>: is doing. If he sees it, and still wishes to
>: continue, then fine. That is his choice. At this
>: point, I really feel he believes what he posts,
>: even though he doesn't realize where he is going wrong.
>
>No apologies needed. What's going on with Phil's postings
>is part of our group process. No cause for shame.
I got the feeling more than a few here were
getting fed up with the 1000 line replies
I was pulling out of Phil.
>We are all "in process," and we stand witness to
>each other's process and the group process.
I just knew you would come up with
a good one Carol...I can always count
on you for that :).
bob
>- CW
P.Scott
Alan Walter wrote in message <36979780...@cyberstation.net>...
>
>
>Christine Norstrand wrote:
>
>> >I refer business to ACW,
>> >Dennis, Heidrun, Lamont, Goldstein and a few others occasionally...
>>
>> Dear LaMont, Acey, Heidrun, Mike, and few others,
>>
>> I'm interested. Have you received referrals from Phil?
>
>No.
With you Allen its been a mix.....depends on the person, I say whats on my
mind. I am real sure that I have disuaded some, people come to me for
advice all the time on these issues...... I tell them what I think.
Others some already on your lines have come to me with doubts and in some of
those cases I have advised the person that I saw tremendous progress in
them, progress that is virtually not available elsewhere, and advised them
to stay with your approach (but I aways advise them it may be that Allan is
not God, and that they are not God... and that to take that position has the
severe liability of disconnecting one from his infinite foundations..... I
also warn about any appeal to the ego, or success measured in an ability to
hold sway or project power, even though these are not to be rejected, its
just as a goal, they may very well be in the wrong direction).
But I do send PC's to you Allen, I advised Carol Willis that I thought
there would be much progress available from your services.... I have said
the the same publicly in this NG, and I am saying it again here.
Its just that I present my considerations also..... and that does disuade
some, it has certainly disuaded me, although much of what you have produced
has been valuable to me.
Real truth does not seem to be a black and white issue.....and in trying to
make it so...... we make serious mistakes.
Very Best Regards, Phil Scott
>
P.Scott
>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999 02:03:52 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Robert writes:
>>: I think [Phil] Scott's hidden agenda is
>>: to veer potential seekers away from clearing tech, but pretends to be
>>: a free zoner so he can have a platform to preach his gospel of hate
from.
>>
>>It's possible, but I don't see that's what's going on here.
>>The black magicians series has plenty of tech, if you use the term
>>free zone in a very loose kind of way, as any ilk of clearing,
>>practitioners not necessarily affiliated. And Phil is right, he has
>>posted more tech over the years than several posters in this forum.
>
>The problem is that for every bit of tech
>he also dumps an inordinate amount of Hubbard
>the satanist posts.
Mister Scott replies:
Boy boy have you ever got that right!
>This causes the effect I mentioned in my post.
>That awe shit blows all his tech out the window.
Well that just has to be tough then. If I were trying to sell you
something it would different, I'd be catering...but I'm not doing that.....
I am just saying what I see.
Now let me say this..... yers truly here, is perhaps one of the least
perfect humans alive..... I am no stranger to serious error, egotism, and
ignorance...I am at least first class in those regards. Believing
*anything I say.... will be almost totally fatal at all times....I am
probably quite thoroughly correct though in some cases...I figure about
0.0001% of the time, I am stunningly correct.... we just haven't totally
figured out which part is that correct yet, but I'm working on it.
Unfortunately that is the best I can do at this time. And Homer in his
complete depravity has set up this NG and allowed any idiot in the universe
(almost) to post to it........ so this is what you get from me.
I hope you enjoy it. If not, I write the recipe's that get a better
response at times...but none of you seem to ever try them.... most of you
bitch about the recipe's too..... so I've swithched to motorcycle racing
stories.
If that doesn't fly I'll try the gun fights, and wild woman stories. Let
me know when I touch on something of interest.... or maybe you could offer
some some of yer own fascinating fiasco stories.
>To mention these connections, or give the URL to
>find more info is one thing....but to attempt to
>drown out every discussion started with ancient
>history from the 40's that has nothing to do with
>the discussion is a problem. He has chosen me
>as a target. I know, I pulled it in by answering
>his anti-Hubbard posts.
I dident target you Bob...but you did pull in the responses, which I
thoroughly enjoyed......near the end though I began to feel quilty.
But I have a really hard
>time sitting here and letting him give the impression
>to any newbies/lurkers to ACT that
>ALL LRH was about
>was enslaving the world through some satanic ritual.
Well that wasn't ALL hubbard was about, but it was a very good part of it,
maybe 62% in the final analysis, the jury is still out..... We keep coming
up with new insights along those lines every day.....
But you see, its like soup.
Just one teensee little cat turd in it, ruins the whole bowl. That's how
it is with bad stuff..... a little goes way too far...... it will be up to
us to use the formula and reverse engineer a new bowl of soup..... the old
bowl is too poluted ingest if one understands the core issues.
Tell you what....you find someone who you trust well, and love, who tells
you that he can go exterior at will....and has audited for a few thousand
hours or so,. and ask that person what he or she thinks about these
issues....... the newbies, and the dianetics case completions don't have a
clue in these matters.
You will still get a mix of opinion, but no shortage of absolutely fatal
flaws these have thrown out of their practice...and seem to be finding more
to throw out every day.
Thats just how it is apparently.
>
>He always claims to give LRH credit. A small salute
>to LRH followed by pages of "that evil satanic being"
That was only because you kept bring the subject up Bob....and saying that
*intention* doesn't matter !!! An education may be in order when that
happens. Although Homer was vastly more tactful with you.
>posts. His praise is just a tactic to get the unwary
>off guard and then clobber them with this shit.
( It took a while to quit laughing) but, well said, Bob.
(I'm back)
>I myself don't post tech. I am NOT a tech finder.
>Am not that far down the path....in fact, I don't
>even attest to the state of clear yet...but this
>ploy by him is so obvious, it really pisses me off.
Bob, when you begin your auditing, you will start to see the technical
issues for yourself...and then you will begin to see what the issues are....
prepair to become totally pissed off... the better one sees in this regard,
the more curve balls one sees from Hubbard.
(However much of his work was beyond compare, the L's... the early grades
espcially, R-6, CCH's !!! of run as ACW advises, but not as LRH wrote into
standard tech....John Macs power processes..... data series #1, Science of
Survival,...the 88008 series, Battle Field Earth . its a long long list
Bob..... if you read this material, and understand it well..... Hubbards
later gross perversions of his own technology become abundantly obvious, as
does his ill intent.
Right now though Bob you are speaking from a position of not knowing either
the LRH material, or how it works, or how it personally affects a person in
the final analysis....
You have some wins, and some insights.... and that is good, but it is
incomplete data at this point for an analysis. I wish you well in your
progress and study.... and I recomend all the people I've listed, with all
the caveats I've ever written...... no path is perfect...... one must find
his own in then end, and hope he gets through the mine field alive.
As a military man you know about that.... it takes a long stick...and some
very careful probing.
>
>I apologise to Clear-l for having pulled this in on
>the group, but I feel Phil needs to face what he
>is doing. If he sees it, and still wishes to
>continue, then fine. That is his choice. At this
>point, I really feel he believes what he posts,
>even though he doesn't realize where he is going wrong.
True on all accounts, especially the last sentence..... none of us see our
own error, if we did, if we saw it clearly enough .... we would see the
error and cease with it..... so Bob, true on all counts, no reservations....
yours truly here, who explodes cans of beans by mistake, pisses off the
government, and upsets the class reunion.... is in great and serious error
the vast percentage of time...The only person I can think of that might want
to context that would be Homer, who is likewise in very bad shape.
>
>It was brought up to me in a private Email
>that perhaps we should hold a comm-ev on Clear-l for
>old Phil, somewhat along the lines of what happened
>with Koos. I tend to agree more with Ralph though.
>He needs to get back in session.
>Although his ranting is leading some of the lurkers
>out there to believe in SPs.
Naw too late, the cult already comm ev'ed me....found I was critical of
senior management and therefore an asshole. I had to agree on both counts.
>You know also that that is in no way
>a safe haven either :).
Now, who ever said that is pretty astute.
Very Best Regards, Phil
>
>bob
>>
>>- CBW
>
>
>
P.Scott
Robert "bob" Hummels wrote in message
>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:34:46 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>Bob H. writes:
>>: The problem is that for every bit of tech
>>: he also dumps an inordinate amount of Hubbard
>>: the satanist posts.
>>
>>that the tech is vibrationally or historically tainted by
>>the wild magickal goings-on Hubbard and Parsons were involved
>>with in the 40's. Phil, what's your stand on this?
Yes thats pretty much it....I'd go a bit farther and say tainted is a weak
word. The liabilities in certain cases can supreme..... a complete
obsession with case, or a complete individuation from Life (due to the
reverse vector in ot-3 and NOTS, driving life away,,, not rehabbing to
native state.)... this viewpoint of individuation *is the satanic agenda,
and is covered with words of love, but advocated individuation.... the
blacker aspects complete destruction of body and soul (I've given the
references earlier)
>>
>>Can we actually and not only logically separate the commands
>>and questions of Hubbard's tech from Hubbard's other interests
>>and personal history?
Nope.... it's like wife who hooks on the side... one cannot separate the
two.... corruption degrades the relationship and the product regardless if
whether one is up to seeing it or not..... there are many 'men' who put
their wives on the street, *they think its fine, and does not hurt the
woman or the relationship.
You of course would beg to differ...... but in that case your words would
fall on deaf ears.
If we can actually make this separation,
>>then the Hubbard and satanic rants are off topic for ACT.
No they are not..... the satanic roots goes directly to INTENT....and intent
is the core of hubbards technology, he both addressed it extensively in
almost ALL of his processes, and rudiments, and OT levels and L's...... he
ran his organization by it.
Intent is at the core of the entire ball game.....
>Interesting thought. I was pushing a version
>of this at Phil perhaps. I think the tech needs
>to be evaluated in terms of the SCN basics.
It surely does, I suggest you become familiar with them, do the levels, then
the briefing course (thats about 2 years full time study)...then audity a
few hundred people....and then observer the greater scene for a few
decades....and then judge the technology by its own basic precepts.......
such as
'never evauate for a PC'..... and tell me how that relates to the clearing
course where one is given a list of incidents and told to run them....
etcetera..
>Any policy/process that violates a basic is
>of course out-tech. Then again there are exceptions
>to every rule right ;-).
First Bob, you need to know the tech...all of it, or at least throught he
levels 1-5....then you need to get some personal experience delivering to a
bunch of different people...thats remarkably enlightnening..... just reading
the material doesn't provide the slightest clue....... ask ACW or any of the
old timers.... reading provides only enough data to run the process, ones
inights change dramatically after experience with the tech,and even more as
a PC.
>>
>>: But I have a really hard
>>: time sitting here and letting him give the impression
>>: to any newbies/lurkers to ACT that ALL LRH was about
>>: was enslaving the world through some satanic ritual.
Well it was Bob... world domination is a stated and published cult goal.
He in fact does use satanic ritual in his processes. And he did
effectively destroy as many critics as he could 'utterly'....
So what is your point here Bob? You are not aware of this stuff, and all
you see is that his processes can produce huge wins? Is that it.
Well, Bob... thats the cheeeeeese part of the trap....the most interesting
part..... and it is a problem for us cheese lovers.....I suggest you get
very long pole, and poke the cheese out gingerly, then inspect it for
poison, before making a dinner of it.
>>I find regulars on clear-l/ACT overly self-conscious and
>>sensitive. If a newbie can't take the initiative to do
>>his own research with a practitioner and draw his own
>>conclusions, then maybe he's not ready in fact at that time,
>>despite protestations to the contrary.
This is correct.
>It is not so much the newbies. I was thinking in
>terms of Cof$ folks looking for a FZ tech terminal.
>One look at Phils Hubbard bashing, and they will
>head for the hills. They need to get over the idol
>worship instilled by the Cof$...but he blasts
>them in the face with it.
You make a good point here Bob....I suggest the hubbard tech contingent post
more tech....like ACW does, and like Heidrun does....this is superb stuff in
most cases, and will attract any intelligent person doing an
investigation...... and who knows maybe they will take these approaches, or
Idenics, or splice some of my stuff in.....
*****
But Hubbards standard technology is history in the real world now. It has
formed a superb base from which to expand, and very very importantly a
corrupt catalysist to drive that expansion....for these two, the technology
and some of the worst corruption, and spiritual devastation seen on planet
earth.....I am deeply and eternally grateful and appreciative, and this
is understating my feelings considerably.
Phil Scott
*****************
>>No apologies needed. What's going on with Phil's postings
>>is part of our group process. No cause for shame.
Yes group process.....
>
>I got the feeling more than a few here were
>getting fed up with the 1000 line replies
>I was pulling out of Phil.
I got about 8 favorable emails, most quite lenghty and complimentary, mostly
from lurkers.
>>We are all "in process," and we stand witness to
>>each other's process and the group process.
And thats a wonderful thing indeed.... we have seen much progress up these
lines.....Deirdre !!, Heidrun !!, Ken Long !!, some who's names elude
me.... but stunning progress.... solo mostly but with some coaching.
Very Best Regards, Phil Scott
>
LR1467
> Those who indulge are already out the bottom spiritually, at least for that
round of play. Who would want to reincarnate into that
kind of environment, an environment where those strategies were prevalent, if
they had a choice?
Evidently, Phil. Altho he may not have much of a choice. I think he is
dramatizing basically. But it IS his choice to spew on this NG.
>It takes a huge amount of psychic energy and time to learn to play those
games, energy that is then NOT being used to develop onself otherwise - we can
expect to find serious omissions and underdevelopment in other areas - that
kind of configuration can only bode poorly for self, intimates, community,
humanity at large, even other
kingdoms in nature.
I agree. When I first came to this NG to lurk, I thought it's purpose was to
present methods of improvement. Phil's methods are presented in the BM series.
BUT he does use that as a vehicle to rant incessantly about a technology that
is generally accepted to one degree or another by most others in this group. I
can't see how trashing on every hand even lends any credence to his BM posts.
I had no interest in reading them at all because of his other posts and emails
to me. I have no doubt that Phil is NOT here to contribute, but to be (as you
stated in general in your post)
>painting a derogatory picture that's distorted or outright false, then
ascribing malicious intent, and trying to sell this idea to others,
presumably to ruin the accused's reputation, confidence and well-being, (and)
I would say, "in order to"
>elevate self in the eyes of others.
LR
LR1467
>A lot of that would be off-topic for ACT, unless Phil is implying that the
tech is vibrationally or historically tainted by the wild magickal goings-on
Hubbard and Parsons were involved with in the 40's. Phil, what's your stand on
this?
His "stand" has been posted ad naseum. He crams it into ANY post about
ANYthing except when he backs off and posts recipes or stories about
bullfighters. It's like some mindless jihad to DESTROY anyone else's VP that
differs from his own.
> If we can actually make this separation,
then the Hubbard and satanic rants are off topic for ACT.
That is the point exactly. And as was earlier pointed out, others who lurk
here to read this NG are expecting some info on clearing, not continuous
ranting about how someone else's tech is satanic, "trashing the competition" as
it was put. This isn't a closed chatroom, if it were, there'd be no thread on
this.
LR
LR1467
((snipped oft repeated and now predictable pattern of apparent self-abasement -
propitiation - remarks aimed at individuals intended to get replies - hubbard
bashing - etc ad naseum psychotic loop verbiage that he thinks passes for
communication))
LR
Christine Norstrand
Carol said:
>
>Unless "scn basics" are spelled out, the phrase is just
>a vague buzzword, we don't know what exactly the set
No, it's not a vague buzzword to interned Class 0 auditors or above. Those
who share the common history above the HDC class know exactly what is being
talked about. Dynamism, Knowledgism, for example, place similar value on
basics. I believe they are a sin qua non for clearing to exist at all.
I can see how this would look this way to you, CBW, because you don't share
the common history and I wonder if they (basics) look like just another
datum, rather than a fundamental set of basics against which all processes
and techniques depend.
These are covered in COHA, Scn 8-8008, the Class 0 and HRD tapes on
communication cycles, auditors code, and the actual definition of
"auditing" and "auditing comm cycle", TRs, theta-mest theory, Consideration
and Mechanics. What can't be communicated in the reading alone is the
continued reference to these basics and their application throughout
professional training. Class 0 auditors *memorize* the auditors code. HRD
auditors do each line in CLAY with the purpose for the code. TRs -- we all
did TRs *daily*.
>includes, so cannot evaluate against it.
>
>I have no attachment to scn basics and feel free to
>question all of it, am more interested in tech being
>evaluated as predictably and elegantly effective at
>achieving case clearing and valid personal success goals.
And I have no idea what clearing really is for you. Basics aren't data to
be evaluated. They're a skill set based on axioms and without that
worldview, clearing as most of the people here understand it, isn't possible.
The fact that scientology shares the underlying basics with the Vedas,
Plato, Jesus, and others is incidental. They're referred to as "scn
basics" here only in the context of this ng's players.
>
>
>: It is not so much the newbies. I was thinking in
>: terms of Cof$ folks looking for a FZ tech terminal.
>: One look at Phils Hubbard bashing, and they will
>: head for the hills.
>
>Presumptive, fear-based, lacking in faith! At some point an outgoing COS
>member has to learn how to do his own investigations and preliminary
>evaluations, then be willing to take the consequences of his commitment,
>all part of the larger, ongoing discernment process.
>
>Again I say, if they head for the hills they weren't ready _in energy_,
I agree with Carol totally here. We are here for discussion, not to create
a dynamic PR piece. That viewpoint has been presented by Allen, Jacobus,
Beth, and many others. I find it disingenuous.
>even if they _thought_ they were ready at the level of ordinary conscious
>mind. If a client-practitioner duo is a good fit in energy at a given
>point in time, neither can get away from it.
>
>If something is really YOURS, you can't get rid of it. It's like
>boomerang, it just comes back.
>
Perhaps, the I Ching says so and that idea has been a comfort at things.
The converse is definitely *not* true: everything you fail to rid yourself
of *not* necessarily YOURS.
And of course, if you get rid of something before you've learned your
lesson from it, you get another one just like it.
Christine
Christine Norstrand
>
Moi:
>: These are covered in COHA, Scn 8-8008, the Class 0 and HRD tapes on
>: communication cycles, auditors code, and the actual definition of
>: "auditing" and "auditing comm cycle", TRs, theta-mest theory, Consideration
>: and Mechanics.
>
>OK, thanks. I'm familiar with these, just don't agree with their use at
>all times in clearing, alternative therapy, spiritual healing, pastoral
>counseling.
>
>
Moi:
>: What can't be communicated in the reading alone is the
>: continued reference to these basics and their application throughout
>: professional training. Class 0 auditors *memorize* the auditors code. HRD
>: auditors do each line in CLAY with the purpose for the code. TRs -- we all
>: did TRs *daily*.
>
>
>I just don't want to be hamstrung by the auditor's code or TRs - at times
>they're too limiting for what's trying to happen in the session. I'm so
>used to working in other ways that any time I've done any clearing in
>laboratory situations using scn-genre clearing, I've felt hamstrung by the
>rules at one or more points, and have aborted training directions any
>number of times on this account - I just could not be limited by those
>rules in how I work with a person.
>
See, they're not *rules* or guidelines. Their axiomatic in a worldview
defined by essentialist presuppositions about the nature of reality.
When you break *rules*, you are breaking them in favor of something far
senior, a fundamental that is a deeper truth (and indeed, more workable).
These deepest truths, the axioms, are the scn basics that the codes come
from.
To illustrate, I don't robotically "give the person the next command" when
it is obvious that the person is trying, and failing, to run a wrongly
understood command.
You have to get past seeing them as mere rules to really duplicate their
meaning.
>
Elle:
>: And I have no idea what clearing really is for you.
>
>Ref: "The Great Work of Liberation".
>
Okey, dokey.
>: Basics aren't data to
>: be evaluated. They're a skill set based on axioms and without that
>: worldview, clearing as most of the people here understand it,
>: isn't possible.
>
>People are welcome to a limited viewpoint if that is their choice. Any
>skill in action such as you reference is based on an open or tacit
>proposition that some behavior or skill is desirable. I look at the truth
>value of those propositions and assume nothing in advance. I look at
>where the proposition might be best applied, and where it should not or
>cannot be applied.
>
I think this is exactly what I'm advocating. The behavior are consistent
with a worldview. The underlying axioms *may* cause deviations from the
agreed upon behavior. But I think rarely. For example, I can't see a time
when interpreting or evaluating a person's data would ever serve the
underlying purpose.
Christine
LR1467
>I'm not at all threatened by Phil's writings on this NG, and don't feel that
my POV or anyone else's, nor the holders of those points of view, are in any
danger of destruction.
I agree. I only stated what I see Phil's intention to be.
LR
P.Scott
Want to know how to win a game against a person with better skills than
yourself.... ruin them first. Here is how its done.
You can try it with basket ball, or pool, or bike racing..... anything like
that.
Break the game into quarters...
If its on a race track, limit your gearing to say just one gear, giving
yourself a severe disadvantage and forcing you to dive into the turns
hotter and come out slower.
This way your skill level rises. but the opponent relaxes his intent...he
thinks he can win, even if he's sloppy..... and sloppy is the natural
condition...it is the lower energy manifestation....without a motive or
need, a person gets sloppy..... people retire and die that way too.
Then keep playing this way, until such point that you can see that you will
have to win most of the rest of the match to prevail..... then start down
shifting into the turns a couple of times, and come out churning the gears
and winding the bike to its limits.
The opponent will not be able to recover his wits in time to pervail against
you.
Professional ball players know this, never play against an inferior player.
The pro needs to even the score keep the challenge daunting in practice, so
multiple sparring partners are used....the pro is beat to death by 5
different guys,,,,,, that evens the score.. the pro is stressed that in
that fashion, and driven to prevail against the odds.
In that way, it seems, a man overcomes.....physically and spiritually.
lacking that challenge, he relapses into the easy chair.
We only overcome what we are challenged with apparently, if we are
challenged by kids or idiots, we gear to that level ..... if we are
challenged by 5 guys with UZI's we gear to that level.
On this basis, of seeking the nastiest opponent, and I mean a real threat
not some verbal contest, a real opponent... a truly deadly adversary with a
real gun, a real nasty past, and who hates ones guts... one expands beyond
our ordinary reality.
In that case, one is grateful to the worthy opponent if he is lucky enough
to find one.....some times its as easy as walking into a biker bar with a
pipe wrench in hand, other times its more difficult..... but if you try, you
will be able to piss of some pretty heavy people, the government is not a
bad source of assholes with guns try digging up some dirt and then blowing
the whistle, and watch what happens.
Its an arduous path, but the rewards can be beyond ones wildest dreams.
Don Juan called these petty tyrants.......the issue of the tryant itself,
he has never pointedly addressed, if asked I am sure he would find the
question completely hillarious..... he'd be flat on his stomach, laughing
uncontrollably, gasping for breath and pounding his fist on the floor, with
tears streaming down his face.... one would worry for his health.
Phil
Homer says facetiously:
>> Let me ask you a question.
>
>
>>What should one do with someone that is out >>to destroy one utterly?
>
Phil responds:
>These should be kept well nurished and supplied >with ammunition... and
given sharper knives.
>
>We need as many assholes as the world can generate.... without them there
is
>no freedom. One absolutely MUST have a worthy opponent, at the lower and
>mid range levels especially..
>
>Without Hubbard, and his grossly suppressive organization, I would not
have
>had the chance of a snowball in hell.
>
>
>
Homer wrote again with a evil twinkle in his eye:
>> Is it not acceptable to destroy them utterly first >>before they do it to
you?.
Phil responds:
>Of course not...... nothing beats a good gun fight.... especially a sneak
>attack. Of course once the battle is on, one must engage and then
>transcend it.... this can be difficult. Lacking that skill set
>however, and requisite insights, one has not the faintest chance of making
>it on the other side from what I can tell... that is the terrifying end
of
>the issue from my perspective..... what we face incarnated is baby steps...
>of a vastly larger situation.
>
>A situation few will ever resolve apparently.
>
>Phil Scott
>
>
>
>> Homer
>>
>>
>>>Phil Scott
>>
>>
>>>(snip)
>>
>>>>
>>>> Homer
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
>>(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>>ho...@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
>
>
Homer Wilson Smith
>I think it goes beyond just intentions. Aside from the question of
>workability of the tech, I think it's a matter of gratitude vs. ingratitude.
Off hand I would say only people who have a problem with
gratitidue have a problem with gratitiude, you know what I mean?
The Law of Saviors is "If you are grateful for having been saved,
you haven't been." -Adore
>If someone saves you from drowning in an Alaskan river and left you with
>only a map, and you get pissed at him from then on because he didn't drive
>you all the way home from there too, then I'd say the problem is yours, not
>his.
I would say this is your interpretaton of others complaints.
Some people seem to think Hubbard owed them the tech by their
>birthright.
Not by birthright, but by prior involvement.
I believe Hubbard betrayed a trust, as did we all. That isn't
even blame, just the way it went.
>I think this planet suffers from too many bellyachers and
>ingrates and not enough people who know how to count their blessings and
>make the most of them.
Righteous, dude!
However I can synch with this view, at the same time as
maintaining my hold on his throat until he returns and cleans up a few
things.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>> So railing about how bad his intentions were etc, is acting
>>like the Church is now, rather than auditing the pc in front of you,
>>namely the Church. Put it into ethics, get tech in, in on yourself
>>and the Church, and audit the damn service fac thats making
>>everyone wrong out here.
>I think you are being facetious here, you point out eloquently else where,
>that *intention is everything.... and of course it is. He had stated some
>very evil intentions from his satanic days in the 40's right on through
>to...
>"destroy them utterly if possible"....
Fine, the point is to AUDIT the evil intentions, pull the withholds
etc, don't sit there and finger point "your intentions are bad natter,
natter, natter" the way Hacker and Koos do to us.
Who cares about evil intentions, its just another R/S on the
meter. Audit the church, don't say You are evil, I will not
audit you!
>> The Church is in deep trouble if we just apply straight
>>Hubbarding standard tech, auditor's code and all.
>True.... it has both ethical and technical problems.....evaluating for the
>PC, heavy ethics, and running from a PC condensed viewpoint, instead of the
>reverse as ACW has been doing for 10 years or longer and as Heidrun has just
>discovered .)
What I meant was the Church's *CASE* would be in deep trouble
if we just applied straight standard tech to it, the case couldn't
stand against correct assesment and willingness to audit the pc
in front of one.
>>Its in worse
>>trouble with all these new advances that everyone is positing.
This means that will the advances the church's case has an even
shorter time to live.
>> I think Hubbard will be pleased.
>His reg policy calls for finding or creating a ruin so people will buy
>auditing.... thats an unethical way to make money, it encourages further
>criminality.... so in the end you end up with an organization run by
>criminals...
Finding and creating a ruin are two very different things.
I know where he says find the ruin, I have never seen where
he said to create a ruin where there was none.
>> If you believe in empathic telepathy, then Ducharme's approach
>>inherently makes sense.
> It makes sense in that regard for sure, it does not make sense the way he's
>applying it, steering the PC off of his own reads.
Well look, if he is in empathic telepathic communication with the
pc, then of course his reads will reflect the state of the pc.
>> What should one do with someone that is out to destroy one utterly?
>These should be kept well nurished and supplied with ammunition... and given
>sharper knives.
Very Adorian.
>Of course not...... nothing beats a good gun fight.... especially a sneak
>attack. Of course once the battle is on, one must engage and then
>transcend it.... this can be quite difficult. Lacking that skill set
>however, and requisite insights, one has not the faintest chance of making
>it on the other side from what I can tell... that is the terrifying end of
>the issue from my perspective..... what we face incarnated is baby steps...
>of a vastly larger situation.
This is again Behemoth?
Homer
Beth Guest
Norstrand <xi...@lightlink.com> writes
> We are here for discussion, not to create
>a dynamic PR piece. That viewpoint has been presented by Allen, Jacobus,
>Beth, and many others. I find it disingenuous.
Fair comment.
But where should folks just out of the church go to to find others of
like mind who can help with healing/re orientation process if not here?
Is there anywhere?
Maybe there is room here on Clear -l for both.
Perhaps there should be a robo post now and again giving some data for
newbies (maybe FAQ) with connections to those on this ng who would want
to actually get in private comm and help/befriend/whatever with perhaps
a who's who on the ng.
I surmise, Christine, that you find the idea of monitoring the content
of one's comm on this ng for the sake of potential newbies wrong. I
agree.
But I don't consider myself a newbie now and I get pissed off at certain
attitudes/BPC running over and over again.
As I said before I find it an anomaly that avowed techies don't -
seemingly - apply the tech to themselves regarding their own charge
which sometimes seems to me to blaze through cyberspace.
Am I wrong here in this analysis?
If I am not, does anyone know why this is?
--
Beth
Homer Wilson Smith
>>>I refer business to ACW,
>>>Dennis, Heidrun, Lamont, Goldstein and a few others occasionally...
>I'm not interested. If a discussion forum can't be used for
>discussion, and if people who discuss on topic (occasional
>kitchen recipes tolerated) are being censored, then what
>is it good for?
Discussion is fine, but so is credibility.
People are doing a Doubt Formula on Phil, and they are
interested in knowing the facts.
Each is free to answer to not answer the question as they will.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>his anti-Hubbard posts. But I have a really hard
>time sitting here and letting him give the impression
>to any newbies/lurkers to ACT that ALL LRH was about
>was enslaving the world through some satanic ritual.
Well Phil, Arnie and Joe Harrington are all in the same boat
on this one.
>I myself don't post tech. I am NOT a tech finder.
>Am not that far down the path....in fact, I don't
>even attest to the state of clear yet...but this
>ploy by him is so obvious, it really pisses me off.
Guilty are we? :)
"There is no liar lying like an angry man." - Hubbard
I would say that those who talk much about the overt speaking
loudly in the accusation think twice before issuing that, it's a
Hubbardism that didn't server him well and even if true, doesn't serve
anyone else well either.
>It was brought up to me in a private Email
>that perhaps we should hold a comm-ev on Clear-l for
>old Phil, somewhat along the lines of what happened
>with Koos.
You will need to do the same with Arnie and Joe, and it
gets dangerous, because soon you will restrain a comment lest
someone comm-ev YOU.
Koos is out of hear because he is unable to communicate
WITH anyone, not because he rants about Hubbard.
I doubt his intentions are bad, no matter how bad he thinks
Hubbard is.
Just as Phil implies that Hubbard meant to take us all down the
garden path, so too are you all saying that Phil is knowingly taking
us all down the garden path.
It reads as a huge AOI, I would just drop it.
>I tend to agree more with Ralph though.
>He needs to get back in session.
Everyone needs to get back into session, Everyone.
Probably those who most point this out in others, need it the
most wouldn't you say?
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>I must say I do however have some charge on some ex-scn and scn I've known
>painting a derogatory picture that's distorted or outright false, then
>ascribing malicious intent, and trying to sell this idea to others,
>presumably to ruin the accused's reputation, confidence and well-being,
Hacker?
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>that the tech is vibrationally or historically tainted by
>the wild magickal goings-on Hubbard and Parsons were involved
>with in the 40's. Phil, what's your stand on this?
>Can we actually and not only logically separate the commands
>and questions of Hubbard's tech from Hubbard's other interests
>and personal history? If we can actually make this separation,
>then the Hubbard and satanic rants are off topic for ACT.
>If we can't or are not, then they may be on topic for ACT.
Everyone comes from a dark background.
Pointing out the dark background of tech finders is silly,
only the pure sweetness and light case "doesn't have one".
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>I am much more likely to listen to Homer or CBW at the other end of the
>spectrum. They don't feel the need to put on airs.
What? I am *DEEPLY* offended.
I will fix this immediately.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>>ALL LRH was about
>>was enslaving the world through some satanic ritual.
>Well that wasn't ALL hubbard was about, but it was a very good part of it,
>maybe 62% in the final analysis, the jury is still out..... We keep coming
>up with new insights along those lines every day.....
>But you see, its like soup.
>Just one teensee little cat turd in it, ruins the whole bowl. That's how
>it is with bad stuff..... a little goes way too far...... it will be up to
>us to use the formula and reverse engineer a new bowl of soup..... the old
>bowl is too poluted ingest if one understands the core issues.
This may be true.
But everyone starts from a point of aberration and works
upward, so everyone's roots are philosophically dirty.
>You will still get a mix of opinion, but no shortage of absolutely fatal
>flaws these have thrown out of their practice...and seem to be finding more
>to throw out every day.
Hubbard also threw out no shortage of fatal flaws, no?
Your implication is that he kept them in on purpose or
invented them to make it worse.
>Bob, when you begin your auditing, you will start to see the technical
>issues for yourself...and then you will begin to see what the issues are....
>prepair to become totally pissed off... the better one sees in this regard,
>the more curve balls one sees from Hubbard.
I can accept this.
>(However much of his work was beyond compare, the L's... the early grades
>espcially, R-6, CCH's !!! of run as ACW advises, but not as LRH wrote into
>standard tech....John Macs power processes..... data series #1, Science of
>Survival,...the 88008 series, Battle Field Earth . its a long long list
>Bob..... if you read this material, and understand it well..... Hubbards
>later gross perversions of his own technology become abundantly obvious, as
>does his ill intent.
There, you see this implies that Hubbard had ill intent all
along, and no one else does.
That's Hacker's swan song and Koos's.
Also the critics.
Everyone has ill intents in the beginning, its just dirt
on the soul. Everyone gets cleaner as they go up, you really
think Hubbard tried to dirty people more than they were except
in the line of duty of cleaning them up. It might have
been a computation of magnitude, but come on, you talk
as if Hubbard was the only bad guy on earth and all the rest
of us are lilly white.
>You have some wins, and some insights.... and that is good, but it is
>incomplete data at this point for an analysis. I wish you well in your
>progress and study.... and I recomend all the people I've listed, with all
>the caveats I've ever written...... no path is perfect...... one must find
>his own in then end, and hope he gets through the mine field alive.
No path is perfect is a far cry from Phil is an evil bastard
who wrote the bm series intetionally trying to bring people down.
>True on all accounts, especially the last sentence..... none of us see our
>own error, if we did, if we saw it clearly enough .... we would see the
>error and cease with it.....
Yes, and probably so it was with Hubbard wouldn't you say?
Why are we mockin him up as different than the rest of us?
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
>feel that my POV or anyone else's, nor the holders of those points of
>view, are in any danger of destruction.
I would agree, however if Phil, Arnie and Joe all started
going at it at the same time, you might feel a bit different :)
Homer
Heidrun Beer
OK. I am sorry but I cannot tell for sure who of the people
who write to me have been referred by Phil Scott. He might
have told me about somebody, and I don't remember now. I tend
to mentally let go of informations which I don't need in present
time for actual work (not the same as forgetting, but with the
same result of the information being unavailable).
Generally I have good comm with Phil and have received very uptone
acknowledgements for several articles I wrote, so I guess that
he would mention my name in a positive way to others. But as he
is living at the other side of the planet, chances that he meets
somebody who would live close enough to me for regular work
are not very high.
What amazed me was that he used the word "business". I cannot see
spiritual assistance as "business", whether money flows or not,
and I am even more amazed that nobody on the newsgroup objected
to this term (I admit that the traffic was too much to really
read it line by line, so I might have missed it).
The amount of dedication, warmth and spiritual intimacy which is
required to really understand and interact with a PC is - for me -
much more than a relationship which has only "business" quality
could ever provide.
I hope that Phil will optimize his statement - if he refers people
to myself or any other consultant, I hope he will NOT consider this
to be "business". He might have adjusted his vocabulary though to
a discussion which wasn't too high on the tone-scale.
Heidrun Beer
Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
http://www.sgmt.at
Robert Hummels
>
> : Carol said:
> : >Unless "scn basics" are spelled out, the phrase is just
> : >a vague buzzword, we don't know what exactly the set
>
> Christine writes:
> : No, it's not a vague buzzword to interned Class 0 auditors or above. Those
> : who share the common history above the HDC class know exactly what is being
> : talked about. Dynamism, Knowledgism, for example, place similar value on
> : basics. I believe they are a sin qua non for clearing to exist at all.
> : I can see how this would look this way to you, CBW, because you don't share
> : the common history and I wonder if they (basics) look like just another
> : datum, rather than a fundamental set of basics against which all processes
> : and techniques depend.
>
> To me "scn basics" are looking like a set of stated or implied/tacit
> propositions to be applied, the content of any and all of which is
> considered desirable and necessary for clearing, and the absence of any
> and all of which is considered bad clearing practice or not real clearing.
>
> : These are covered in COHA, Scn 8-8008, the Class 0 and HRD tapes on
> : communication cycles, auditors code, and the actual definition of
> : "auditing" and "auditing comm cycle", TRs, theta-mest theory, Consideration
> : and Mechanics.
>
> OK, thanks. I'm familiar with these, just don't agree with their use at
> all times in clearing, alternative therapy, spiritual healing, pastoral
> counseling.
>
> : What can't be communicated in the reading alone is the
> : continued reference to these basics and their application throughout
> : professional training. Class 0 auditors *memorize* the auditors code. HRD
> : auditors do each line in CLAY with the purpose for the code. TRs -- we all
> : did TRs *daily*.
>
> I can believe this.
>
> I just don't want to be hamstrung by the auditor's code or TRs - at times
> they're too limiting for what's trying to happen in the session. I'm so
> used to working in other ways that any time I've done any clearing in
> laboratory situations using scn-genre clearing, I've felt hamstrung by the
> rules at one or more points, and have aborted training directions any
> number of times on this account - I just could not be limited by those
> rules in how I work with a person.
Carol,
This always brings back a comment I got from
my English teacher in High Scool.......
I used to bitch and moan about all that
useless diagraming of sentences , etc. The answer
of course was always "You have to know the rules
before you can bend or break them."
If you have the data on the basics, it can
help you to find your way through the exceptions
to the rule as well as making the case which falls
strictly in-line with the basics a snap.
It must always remain foremost in your mind that
this is a guideline. Never ever set anything in
stone.....except there are probably exceptions
to this too :).
> : And I have no idea what clearing really is for you.
>
> Ref: "The Great Work of Liberation".
>
> : Basics aren't data to
> : be evaluated. They're a skill set based on axioms and without that
> : worldview, clearing as most of the people here understand it,
> : isn't possible.
>
> People are welcome to a limited viewpoint if that is their choice. Any
> skill in action such as you reference is based on an open or tacit
> proposition that some behavior or skill is desirable. I look at the truth
> value of those propositions and assume nothing in advance. I look at
> where the proposition might be best applied, and where it should not or
> cannot be applied.
Not talking about limiting your viewpoint, just
giving you a basic set of guidelines to base
any further exploration on.
bob
> : >If something is really YOURS, you can't get rid of it. It's like
> : >boomerang, it just comes back.
> : >
> : Perhaps, the I Ching says so and that idea has been a comfort at things.
> : The converse is definitely *not* true: everything you fail to rid yourself
> : of *not* necessarily YOURS.
>
> True enough!
>
> : And of course, if you get rid of something before you've learned your
> : lesson from it, you get another one just like it.
>
> Yep, the boomerang effect - same bull, new day.
> Now where's my red bullfighting cape?
>
> - CBW
Robert Hummels
>
> In article <4.1.199901091...@mail.lightlink.com>, Christine
> Norstrand <xi...@lightlink.com> writes
> > We are here for discussion, not to create
> >a dynamic PR piece. That viewpoint has been presented by Allen, Jacobus,
> >Beth, and many others. I find it disingenuous.
>
> Fair comment.
>
> But where should folks just out of the church go to to find others of
> like mind who can help with healing/re orientation process if not here?
>
> Is there anywhere?
>
> Maybe there is room here on Clear -l for both.
>
> Perhaps there should be a robo post now and again giving some data for
> newbies (maybe FAQ) with connections to those on this ng who would want
> to actually get in private comm and help/befriend/whatever with perhaps
> a who's who on the ng.
>
> I surmise, Christine, that you find the idea of monitoring the content
> of one's comm on this ng for the sake of potential newbies wrong. I
> agree.
Actually I agree with this as well. The problem I have
is that EVERY THREAD in which Phil gets active, eventually
turns into an anti-Hubbard rant. Even when it serves NO
purpose in the thread (See "Indoctrination" thread).
He just can not let go of that held down 7.
bob
Heidrun Beer
>As I said before I find it an anomaly that avowed techies don't -
>seemingly - apply the tech to themselves regarding their own charge
>which sometimes seems to me to blaze through cyberspace.
>
>Am I wrong here in this analysis?
>
>If I am not, does anyone know why this is?
The question of the tone-level of posts has been discussed
several times here. Some people said that we should represent
the wisdom of the tech we have learned; others said that
communication should always be HONEST. And of course there
is no value in suppressing charge and presenting a faked
serenity which is nothing but a cheap show.
I could imagine that what you call "charge", is perceived as
justified antagonism by others.
It comes back to the column on "reality" on the tone-scale. A really
up-tone person can conceive of SEVERAL viewpoints which all have
some validity. He is stable enough, and wide and flexible enough,
to allow himself to inspect another person's viewpoint without
giving up his own (although they might be quite different).
Below this band on the tone-scale, the own viewpoint and the viewpoint
of another person begin to more and more exclude each other. If I am
right, then the other must be wrong, and vice versa.
For me it is the essential capability of UNDERSTANDING, that I can
extend from my own viewpoint and comprise a different one, without
giving up what I have recognized to be true for myself. This allows
me to fully mock-up the other person's viewpoint, which for me is
the real act of granting beingness.
If this is to work, it is necessary too to mock-up enough space
for BOTH viewpoints to fully unfold without colliding, AND to be
fully aware of the main similarities and differences between both
viewpoints. If this is done, we have compared data of comparable
magnitudes, which allows for a stable orientation.
This can be applied to the very question of "tone-level of discussion"
itself. For instance it is my viewpoint that everybody in a discussion
should grant beingness to the others, and hold the concept that these
others might be right, even if he himself cannot understand them
and/or doesn't share their viewpoint.
But I also see the value of the viewpoint "discussion should be honest".
In fact I myself AM honest by discussing in a not-charged way. I just
don't get triggered by other people because I understand them too fast.
But if somebody else gets negative emotions, there might be a value
in expressing them.
Negative emotions don't just "happen". They have roots. So yes, they
should be allowed to come out into the open, for the one reason that
they are there, and if they are not allowed into the open, it would
not be possible to inspect them.
Life sometimes assumes the role of the auditor. If it restimulates a charge,
this charge should be allowed to fully unfold. Of course if this isn't
followed by a full inspection, done in as-is-ness-mode, then the whole
thing will turn into a dramatization, will not run out, and will happen
again at the next opportunity.
But this is, again, my personal viewpoint which I think has its truth.
There might be a reason to NOT run things out when they have been
triggered in a public discussion. Maybe I haven't seen it yet. Isn't
this the reason why people discuss in the first place? To learn more
about other people's universes? I can't believe that it is all done
in order to prove oneself right and earn some applause.
Robert Hummels
<SNIP>
>
> >I myself don't post tech. I am NOT a tech finder.
> >Am not that far down the path....in fact, I don't
> >even attest to the state of clear yet...but this
> >ploy by him is so obvious, it really pisses me off.
>
> Bob, when you begin your auditing, you will start to see the technical
> issues for yourself...and then you will begin to see what the issues are....
> prepair to become totally pissed off... the better one sees in this regard,
> the more curve balls one sees from Hubbard.
Phil, I am auditing. Don't approach this from the
POV that I know nothing anyway so WTF should
I be complaining about. Dead Agent tactics are
for the OSA Phil.
> (However much of his work was beyond compare, the L's... the early grades
> espcially, R-6, CCH's !!! of run as ACW advises, but not as LRH wrote into
> standard tech....John Macs power processes..... data series #1, Science of
> Survival,...the 88008 series, Battle Field Earth . its a long long list
> Bob..... if you read this material, and understand it well..... Hubbards
> later gross perversions of his own technology become abundantly obvious, as
> does his ill intent.
I have read most if not all of it Phil.
The more of this you post, the loader
Ralph's C/S screams in my ear.
> Right now though Bob you are speaking from a position of not knowing either
> the LRH material, or how it works, or how it personally affects a person in
> the final analysis....
I am using Pilots material. All of which
is derived in one way or another from LRH
tech. I read the LRH tech, I use the basics.
I am doing my time in hell solo right now.
No sign up to this point of babylon though...
maybe I didn't get the incantation right?
> You have some wins, and some insights.... and that is good, but it is
> incomplete data at this point for an analysis. I wish you well in your
> progress and study.... and I recomend all the people I've listed, with all
> the caveats I've ever written...... no path is perfect...... one must find
> his own in then end, and hope he gets through the mine field alive.
Perhaps you should be instructing the OSA on
DA packs. You seem to have a golden tongue
for such. Just because I have never attested
to clear does NOT mean I have no knowledge.
The mission folks seemed to think I was
in this battle before this life......
Basics are basics. I am still searching
for the axiom that deals with satanism.
> As a military man you know about that.... it takes a long stick...and some
> very careful probing.
I tend to use a line charge.....it blows
a 5 meter wide path right down the middle,
for about 300 meters which you can drive a Tank through.
Blown charge, in more ways than one.
> >I apologise to Clear-l for having pulled this in on
> >the group, but I feel Phil needs to face what he
> >is doing. If he sees it, and still wishes to
> >continue, then fine. That is his choice. At this
> >point, I really feel he believes what he posts,
> >even though he doesn't realize where he is going wrong.
>
> True on all accounts, especially the last sentence..... none of us see our
> own error, if we did, if we saw it clearly enough .... we would see the
> error and cease with it..... so Bob, true on all counts, no reservations....
> yours truly here, who explodes cans of beans by mistake, pisses off the
> government, and upsets the class reunion.... is in great and serious error
> the vast percentage of time...The only person I can think of that might want
> to context that would be Homer, who is likewise in very bad shape.
> >
> >It was brought up to me in a private Email
> >that perhaps we should hold a comm-ev on Clear-l for
> >old Phil, somewhat along the lines of what happened
> >with Koos. I tend to agree more with Ralph though.
> >He needs to get back in session.
> >Although his ranting is leading some of the lurkers
> >out there to believe in SPs.
>
> Naw too late, the cult already comm ev'ed me....found I was critical of
> senior management and therefore an asshole. I had to agree on both counts.
> >You know also that that is in no way
> >a safe haven either :).
>
> Now, who ever said that is pretty astute.
Good attempt Phil.
I'm not biting.
bob
> Very Best Regards, Phil
LR1467
> I would say that those who talk much about the overt speaking loudly in the
accusation think twice before issuing that, it's a
Hubbardism
Well, it was before that a Shakespearism
>that didn't serve him well and even if true, doesn't serve anyone else well
either.
It's true in humanbeans anyway. I've found it a useful datum - knowing, of
course, that there is a difference between wild random carping and actually
point out outpoints.
I think that if none of us had improved any since we started this trek, we
wouldn't be here now on this thread having all these wonderful insights that we
so freely share with, about and AT each other. (do I have to put a winky face
here to indicate facitiousness? I haven't quite got the hang of the lingo yet)
> Just as Phil implies that Hubbard meant to take us all down the garden path,
so too are you all saying that Phil is knowingly taking
us all down the garden path.
I disagree. Phil isn't taking anybody anywhere. That's why his posts are to a
large extent useless. And in many cases, like Kooks, he doesn't communicate
WITH either, just AT. Even if he uses someone's name to preface his verbiage.
I don't think the point is case. I think the point is dramatizing it so
flagrently and gleefully and deliberately when there just might be more
constructive things to talk about on a NG about clearing technology. We don't
need demonstrations of why clearing is necessary. We've all got our own - and
most handle those of others in sessions. I must have been laboring under the
delusion that the topic here more or less is supposed to be clearing
technologies, not dramatizations that need to be cleared. I have some favorite
ones of my own, but I see no need to blabber incessantly about them on this NG.
LR
LR1467
> you talk as if Hubbard was the only bad guy on earth and all the rest of us
are lilly white.
> Why are we mockin him up as different than the rest of us?
He talks as if the rest of us are at EFFECT of Hubbard, just like the Termite
talks. He assigns all this power to pollute to Hubbard. He accuses him of
beating us down until we could see only Hubbard's up. He creates for himself
his own "worthy opponent" and then uses the same tactics, classic oppterm sit.
He assigns himself all this power to enlighten us. And isn't HE important for
having HUBBARD as an opponent? Shouldn't we be in awe while he beats us down
until we agree only with the BM up? I think we have been telling him we ain't
buyin what he's sellin. Which tactics include appropriately injected
self-abasement where necessary and just enough validation of others to put him
"on our side," and the correct amount of lip service to the abilities of his
opponent (never without the added BUT) with enough deliberate denial and
rebuttal and fabrications and other well-known well-worn tactics that we all
spot because we have used them all before ourselves - as you correctly stated.
> Everyone has ill intents in the beginning, its just dirt on the soul.
Maybe Phil just needs a bath. Maybe everyone here has a well-used bar of soap
they could loan him. If we were all so squeaky clean, there'd be no need for
any clearing technology at all. But I don't think that means there's a market
for more dirt, even if he is giving it away for free.
LR
P.Scott
Homer Wilson Smith wrote in message <36985...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>P.Scott (psc...@inreach.com) wrote:
Homer wrote:
> Hubbard also threw out no shortage of fatal flaws, no?
He did his best for a long time, he did better than any man alive before
him...he tried to develop a bullet proof system....... and he was going in
that direction pretty well until he went off the rails with the evaluations
on the sci fi stuff...(that appears to be about the time of the first CIA
contacts, in the mid to late 60's...the CIA was doing a lot of really nasty
experiements then with various drugs on unwitting test subjects, including
half of congress for gods sake!..) in 1972 the SRI experiements
'officially' started..... almost immediately there after the OT levels were
trashed, a few years after that the FBI took pick ax's to the cults property
headquarters in Los Angeles, Hubbard went into Hidding..... and then the
displacement of LRH took place by the CIA people now totally in charge of
the CST and in control of the cult.... (and holding the law off at arms
length in exchange for Miscaviges cooperation...... David is in bed with
these guys big time, as well as the formerly damned Interpol, (interpol is
now handing out 'what is scientology' books to heads of state around the
world.... and in 1995 the cult published pics of DM with his arm around the
two top Interpol officials.... Interpol was founded by x german SS officers
as documented by the cult in the mid 70's, written up an published (by robt
vaughn young)... or the USGO
the change of aliances should get ones attention.... but apparently it
hasn't)......
......... accordingly it may well be that many of Hubbards flaws were
externally induced..... Have you seen that beat out looking pic of LRH with
the long stringy hair........ friends, that picture would have, and could
have, ONLY been made in captivity... hubbard would never have posed for
it....nor in A THOUSAND YEARS.... who the hell took it? and who the hell
handed it out to the press?
Answer that question, an things will begin to make better sense for you.
Any one familiar with the tactics of our govts intelligence community (its
been all over 60 minutes, the cointell program.... etc etc..... and anyone
aware of what US Naval intellegence has been up to...... would understand
quite well the genisus of that photo).
Massive perversion entered in...... from a man who had presented world class
breakthroughs previously..... his name is being trashed now, and dragged
through the mud, because of the bad results the corrupted organization has
produced.
(I began writting this up in detail since 1995. and posting it to ars, some
to act.)
This is not a simple situation. Hubbard was immersed in the dark side long
before he founded the cult, his father was in US naval intelligence
apparentyl ...(see veritas site, evaluate reference for yourself).... his
buddy parsons, was a statanist, but just as interesting, a top secret
cleared rocket fuel scientists....at the same time he founded the OTO lodge
!! Now that is crucial information, especially if you have any faint idea
of what it takes to get a top secret government clearance.
(a much lower level Q clearance takes 6 months, teams of investigators
PERSONALLY visit your old grade school buddies and teachers...and
neighbors....... Jack Parsons had 'Top Secret" clearance....and at the same
time founded the OTO satanic lodge in Pasadena California ..... so? well
by itself, this may not be overly interesting, in context with the larger
picture Ive been discussing it its just a stunningly fascinating set of
connections.)
. Hubbard dissapeared from active naval duty, with a hospital stay as cover
in my view, and reapeared after the war praising commander 'Snake' Thompson,
US Army (occultist) and hubbard mentor....... how the hell did that
happen..... the only mix in these two branches of the armed services is at
the highest levels of the intelligence community....
Damn there we go again with that connection..... couldn't possibly be that
they funded the SRI experiements..
This whole mess is connected....and I've just touched a few high points
here. The Navy would try to prevent the spread of OT abilities if proven
to be a fact. They would view these abilities as a threat.... those who
have not met some of these core level peoplem could not possibly
understand... those who have, understand completely....none the less the
evidence is piling up.
There were in fact heavy govt infiltrations into the cult in the mid 80's,
anyone who knew who Bruce Rothwell was would know that..... I of course knew
bruce very well, he was on my payroll for quite some time, was sent
apparently because some of my session data leaked out... he spent half his
time grilling me about remote viewing, and the other half off in nut case
sci fi probing. .... truly I didn't have a clue on either issue, but the
govt was in fact apparently very interested. Bruce ended up to be a good
sized flap on USGO lines in LA in the Late 70's.... B1 (cult security)
finally got to him.
>
> Your implication is that he kept them in on purpose or
>invented them to make it worse.
He did, I believe under the durress mentioned above, driven by his own greed
apparently as well.... I've spoken about this last aspect with Mike
Goldstein at length, it was Hubbard demanding more and more money....nothing
else. Was Hubbard captured and screwed with?
Good question. I think it was a mix.... the man was into serious spirtiual
corruption from mid Navy days on..... and then it got nasty just as he
returned from developing OT-3... he came back in a basket... thats when we
began to see actual CIA agents on staff and doing OT levels ( Dr. Hal
Puthoff, was with the NSA when he did his OT-3... the NSA at the time was so
secret that it did not even have a public name, its budget was entirely
black..)
>>(However much of his work was beyond compare, the L's... the early grades
>>espcially, R-6, CCH's !!! of run as ACW advises, but not as LRH wrote
into
>>standard tech....John Macs power processes..... data series #1, Science
of
>>Survival,...the 88008 series, Battle Field Earth . its a long long list
>>Bob..... if you read this material, and understand it well..... Hubbards
>>later gross perversions of his own technology become abundantly obvious,
as
>>does his ill intent.
>
> There, you see this implies that Hubbard had ill >intent all along,
and no one else does....
He was just marginally dirty prior to the Naval experience with Commander
'Snake' Thompson (army intelligence)... he came out a hard core satanist and
met Jack Parsons (satanist) and very intersestingly also Top Secret cleared
govt rocket fuel scientist. By then he was real dirty.
Then he founded the cult..... on that dirty basis, but tried to do good for
humanity, for fun and profit...and for the betterment of man, so there would
be meaning in his life I am sure. He did well. When he began to do too
well, that is produce what the govt thought were real OT's, the intel boys
got back in and took over.
I think thats probably 80% or more correct in the general sequence of
events.
>>True on all accounts, especially the last sentence..... none of us see our
>>own error, if we did, if we saw it clearly enough .... we would see the
>>error and cease with it.....
>
> Yes, and probably so it was with Hubbard wouldn't you say?
I think Hubbard saw many his own crimes.... after all he violated his own
quite decent policy... he wrote the policy...... but he violated it.....
I've thought for some time now that after the intel communnity take over of
his cult, he deliberately set out to destroy it, to make it so noxious that
humanity would reject it and the new core of it, american intelligence......
I am about 30% sure on that...... you get to figure out what the real deal
is...... I have only the clues I present.... limited clues.
> Why are we mockin him up as different than the rest of us?
I just get carried away when some idiot says Hubbard was a boyscout who
loved kids.... he wasn't, so I present that side....... the real picture is
vastly more complex, I think the real issue...... but very few people want
to discuss it (except Arnie, Tom Klemsrude, LW, Bob, RVY.....and a few
others)
and of course, you know , many on ars for instance work directly for the US
govt, some in intelligence, Dianes husband for instance. and these, guess
what..... ridicule any possible intelligence connection.
My my what a coincidence. I suggest one look at the issues...
Very Best Regards, Phil Scott
>
> Homer
>
P.Scott
Beth writes:
>Am I wrong here in this analysis?
>
>If I am not, does anyone know why this is?
You are not wrong, you are just you....and what you think will change
continually as you evolve, thats true for all of us.
Right now you are seeing the cult PR a bit better than the reality of what
cult processing is all about, so you don't fathom the remarks of those of us
with a bit more experience.
and I don't fathom the reality of those a bit more sentient than myself.....
we all comment from our current limitations. and that of course is just
fine.
Its more than fine.... its wonderful. We learn from both the shortcomming
of others no matter how unpleasant, almost as much, mabye more than we learn
from what we agree with.
Some of us just strive to be as entertaining as possible with the
rhetoric.... that adds some excitement don't you think?
Phil
>--
>Beth