Hollywood stars attack German's scientology policy
Huge Cajones Remailer
Tilman says:
<I have still to see when individual scientologists were ever discriminated.
There are examples in the HATE booklet published in 1993:
- November 1989: I received an anonymous call at 3 a.m. and was
insulted for being a "sect pig" and was threatened with the "death of
all Scientologists."
- August 1990: At the real estate office, the rental contract was
written and I signed it. A few days later, an employee of the office
called me and told me that I couldn't have the apartment. The
apartment owner had said no. He did not want to have sect members in
his apartment.
- The following is a statement by an opponent of the Scientology
religion at an event in North Germany on June 11, 1991: "Unfortunately
they [the Scientologists] don't wear an SC [Scientology Church] label
which would make it easier to recognize them."
- May 16, 1992: Anonymous phone call to the 72 year-old mother of a
Scientologist at a home for the elderly: "Scientology pig."
- July 10, 1991: A letter from the Catholic Bildungswerks [education
group] to a female employee, who had been working for this group for
sever years: "After the last Board meeting, I have to inform you that
the Catholic Bildungswerk won't be able to employ you any longer due to
your membership in the Scientology Church."
- Spring 1990: At a bookstore in Gronau the display windows were
smashed. A note was left which said that the windows were broken as a
protest against the store displaying the book Dianetics.
Bev
Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:
WHO wrote this book? Who published and distributed it?
BTW, slick move in sending people to other NG's to stir
the pot. Too bad a.r.s.'ers read other NG's as well.
Beverly
Huge Cajones Remailer
Beverly wrote:
>WHO wrote this book? Who published and distributed it?
The full title is HATE AND PROPAGANDA - Documentation of the Hate
Campaign Against the Scientology Community in Germany. It was
published 1993 by Church of Scientology International. There is another
more recent publication entitled THE RISE OF HATRED & VIOLENCE IN
GERMANY published by FREEDOM MAGAZINE which also gives instances of
harassment against Scientologists.
- During a 1993 concert in Stadt of Golden Bough, an American folk
singing group whose members are Scientologists, Christian Democratic
Union youth affiliate members marched to the stage with banners to
intimidate and ridicule the musicians. Earlier a German magazine
printed a list of names of musicians who were Scientologists suggesting
boycotting all musicians on the "hit" list. In the fall of 1991 the
Hamburg city government cancelled their contract at Hamburg's music
hall, as did the city of Celle due to their "connection" with the Church
of Scientology.
- The Kath's, a German family who got into Scientology in 1992, had
their 3 year old son ostracized from kindergarten after the head of the
kindergarten told other children not to play with him because he was a
Scientologist. The father, Detlef, was forced out of his job at
Mecklenburge Insurance Company. Detlef attempted to defend Scientology
at an anti-Scientology rally in Berlin, was called a "devil" and forced
to leave.
- Scientologist Klaus Kempe and his wife attempted for 7 years to adopt
a child, which was denied due to the fact that they were Scientologists.
They fought for 7 years in the courts but by the end of that time, the
issue became moot as both had passed the upper age limit allowed for
adoption.
- In 1992 the Commerz Bank of Hanover closed the business account of
Hubillus and Partners, a real estate business as "Mr. Kubillus is a
Scientologist."
- Stuttgart police who witnessed Frank Pass being threatened by a man
while handling out pamphlets, stood by and did nothing. They then
seized the pamphlets, took him to police headquarters and fined him for
not carrying ID at all times.
The book draws parallels between the treatment of Scientologists and
other minorities in Germany now, as compared to the beginnings of the
Jewish persecution in Germany. It's an interesting comparison.
Perry Scott
Huge Cajones Remailer (nob...@huge.cajones.com) wrote:
A lot of statements without any names. Ho hum.
Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee
Anastasia Sidorowich
Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:
>
> Tilman says:
>
> <I have still to see when individual scientologists were ever discriminated.
>
> There are examples in the HATE booklet published in 1993:
>
> - November 1989: I received an anonymous call at 3 a.m. and was
> insulted for being a "sect pig" and was threatened with the "death of
> all Scientologists."
>
> - August 1990: At the real estate office, the rental contract was
> written and I signed it. A few days later, an employee of the office
> called me and told me that I couldn't have the apartment. The
> apartment owner had said no. He did not want to have sect members in
> his apartment.
>
> - The following is a statement by an opponent of the Scientology
> religion at an event in North Germany on June 11, 1991: "Unfortunately
> they [the Scientologists] don't wear an SC [Scientology Church] label
> which would make it easier to recognize them."
>
> - May 16, 1992: Anonymous phone call to the 72 year-old mother of a
> Scientologist at a home for the elderly: "Scientology pig."
>
> - July 10, 1991: A letter from the Catholic Bildungswerks [education
> group] to a female employee, who had been working for this group for
> sever years: "After the last Board meeting, I have to inform you that
> the Catholic Bildungswerk won't be able to employ you any longer due to
> your membership in the Scientology Church."
Are there any names or towns to go with the above statements?
>
> - Spring 1990: At a bookstore in Gronau the display windows were
> smashed. A note was left which said that the windows were broken as a
> protest against the store displaying the book Dianetics.
What was the name of the bookstore?
Anastasia
Bev
Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:
>
> Beverly wrote:
>
> >WHO wrote this book? Who published and distributed it?
>
> The full title is HATE AND PROPAGANDA - Documentation of the Hate
> Campaign Against the Scientology Community in Germany. It was
> published 1993 by Church of Scientology International. There is another
> more recent publication entitled THE RISE OF HATRED & VIOLENCE IN
> GERMANY published by FREEDOM MAGAZINE which also gives instances of
> harassment against Scientologists.
I knew that it was from Co$ publications, but wanted it verified by
you for the NG.
> - The Kath's, a German family who got into Scientology in 1992, had
> their 3 year old son ostracized from kindergarten after the head of the
> kindergarten told other children not to play with him because he was a
> Scientologist.
This is not acceptable. Sci kids that are lucky enough to go to a
public school rather that a Co$ school at least have more of a chance
to be in an environment where they can have contact with non Co$
people. What was the name of the school? What was the name of the
teacher? This should be mentioned as well.
> The father, Detlef, was forced out of his job at
> Mecklenburge Insurance Company.
After what happened with the Allstate Insurance Co. after becoming
infiltrated by Co4, that would be understandable, though not
necessarily right.
> - Scientologist Klaus Kempe and his wife attempted for 7 years to adopt
> a child, which was denied due to the fact that they were Scientologists.
> They fought for 7 years in the courts but by the end of that time, the
> issue became moot as both had passed the upper age limit allowed for
> adoption.
Well, I can understand that as well. Children are NOT old thetans in
a little body, and knowing the true beleifs and policies that Co$ so
desparately tries to keep hidden but continualy fails to do, it would
cause concern as to where the priorities would be.
> - In 1992 the Commerz Bank of Hanover closed the business account of
> Hubillus and Partners, a real estate business as "Mr. Kubillus is a
> Scientologist."
What overts and withholds did Mr. Kubillus partake in to draw this in
on himself? I DO know as has been reported that Co$ pulled off some
really underhanded and dirty real estate tricks and deals. There may
be a lot more to the story that Co$ forgot to mention.
> The book draws parallels between the treatment of Scientologists and
> other minorities in Germany now, as compared to the beginnings of the
> Jewish persecution in Germany. It's an interesting comparison.
What I find completely ironic about this fact is that Co$ can only see
with a magnifying glass what others do, and then blow it way up.
They absolutely REFUSE to make a list of THEIR crimes that they have
committed against individuals, against businesses and against whole
governments.
I NEED you to tell me WHY this is. I desparately need to see you
address THIS fact. It would be good for all of the readers, both
posters and lurkers alike, to hear you address:
WHY IT IS THE CO$ IS TOTALLY INCAPABLE OF REPORTING ON THEIR OWN
CRIMES AND HARRASSMENTS. WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?
We are all eagerly awaiting your answer. Of course, there are so
many Huge Cajones out there, how will we know it's YOU!! :-)
Beverly
Rod Keller
Bev (dbj...@iag.net) wrote:
: Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:
: > - The Kath's, a German family who got into Scientology in 1992, had
: > their 3 year old son ostracized from kindergarten after the head of the
: > kindergarten told other children not to play with him because he was a
: > Scientologist.
:
: This is not acceptable. Sci kids that are lucky enough to go to a
: public school rather that a Co$ school at least have more of a chance
: to be in an environment where they can have contact with non Co$
: people. What was the name of the school? What was the name of the
: teacher? This should be mentioned as well.
I believe it was a church school, not a public school. There was some
mention that they may have enrolled the child for the express purpose of
being told "no".
: > The father, Detlef, was forced out of his job at
: > Mecklenburge Insurance Company.
:
: After what happened with the Allstate Insurance Co. after becoming
: infiltrated by Co4, that would be understandable, though not
: necessarily right.
"Forced out" sounds like "fired". What was he fired for? Could have been
anything. Stealing, poor sales, bad relationships with co-workers.
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club
United Free Zone Alliance / The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos
Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
Tilman Hausherr
In <1996102120...@mailmasher.com>, nob...@huge.cajones.com (Huge
Cajones Remailer) wrote:
>There are examples in the HATE booklet published in 1993:
Ernie? Is this you?
Do you know that scientologists were fined for distributing this hate
booklet?
Do you know that almost all in this booklet are disputes between private
parties?
>- November 1989: I received an anonymous call at 3 a.m. and was
>insulted for being a "sect pig" and was threatened with the "death of
>all Scientologists."
This is not "discrimination". This is an abusive phone call.
>- August 1990: At the real estate office, the rental contract was
>written and I signed it. A few days later, an employee of the office
>called me and told me that I couldn't have the apartment. The
>apartment owner had said no. He did not want to have sect members in
>his apartment.
Unlogical. No one says "Hi, I am a scientologist" when applying for an
apartment. I think more truthful is that someone wanted to open a
scientolgy org. Also no details.
I suggest you word-clear and clay-demo LRH's text "The anti-social
personality.... speaks in generalities ... etc". Could someone please
e-mail me the text?
>- The following is a statement by an opponent of the Scientology
>religion at an event in North Germany on June 11, 1991: "Unfortunately
>they [the Scientologists] don't wear an SC [Scientology Church] label
>which would make it easier to recognize them."
This is not discrimination. This is a very stupid language. Also, you
don't say who said that.
>- May 16, 1992: Anonymous phone call to the 72 year-old mother of a
>Scientologist at a home for the elderly: "Scientology pig."
This is not "discrimination". This is an abusive phone call.
>- July 10, 1991: A letter from the Catholic Bildungswerks [education
>group] to a female employee, who had been working for this group for
>sever years: "After the last Board meeting, I have to inform you that
>the Catholic Bildungswerk won't be able to employ you any longer due to
>your membership in the Scientology Church."
Employee who divorces gets also fired. Besides, you claim scientology is
a religion. So what?
>- Spring 1990: At a bookstore in Gronau the display windows were
>smashed. A note was left which said that the windows were broken as a
>protest against the store displaying the book Dianetics.
This is not "discrimination". This is vandalism. Same happened routinely
in the Berlin "dianetik bookshop".
>- During a 1993 concert in Stadt of Golden Bough, an American folk
>singing group whose members are Scientologists, Christian Democratic
>Union youth affiliate members marched to the stage with banners to
>intimidate and ridicule the musicians. Earlier a German magazine
>printed a list of names of musicians who were Scientologists suggesting
You say "suggesting". So obviously they were not calling for a boycott.
>boycotting all musicians on the "hit" list. In the fall of 1991 the
>Hamburg city government cancelled their contract at Hamburg's music
>hall, as did the city of Celle due to their "connection" with the Church
>of Scientology.
The can get private facilities for their recruitment tours. Why should
the state lease to people whose aim is to destroy it?
>- The Kath's, a German family who got into Scientology in 1992, had
>their 3 year old son ostracized from kindergarten after the head of the
>kindergarten told other children not to play with him because he was a
>Scientologist.
I hope that this is not true. Considering the honesty of such
propaganda, it probably isn't.
>The father, Detlef, was forced out of his job at
>Mecklenburge Insurance Company. Detlef attempted to defend Scientology
>at an anti-Scientology rally in Berlin, was called a "devil" and forced
>to leave.
Labor laws are very pro-employee here, unlike the US. He could sue. 90%
of all cases are decided pro-employees. Funny, no mention of a lawsuit.
Let me guess. The guy proselytised for co$, was told three times to stop
it, didn't stop, was fired.
>- Scientologist Klaus Kempe and his wife attempted for 7 years to adopt
>a child, which was denied due to the fact that they were Scientologists.
>They fought for 7 years in the courts but by the end of that time, the
>issue became moot as both had passed the upper age limit allowed for
>adoption.
No discrimination. Kempe is a hard-core scieno. The concept of "adults
in small bodies" is not compatible with the general view how children
should be raised.
Why didn't Kempe try to adopt a fresh baby from the source where Tom
Cruise got his?
>- In 1992 the Commerz Bank of Hanover closed the business account of
>Hubillus and Partners, a real estate business as "Mr. Kubillus is a
>Scientologist."
Or maybe poor credit behaviour?
>- Stuttgart police who witnessed Frank Pass being threatened by a man
>while handling out pamphlets, stood by and did nothing. They then
>seized the pamphlets, took him to police headquarters and fined him for
>not carrying ID at all times.
Define "threatened". I assume that "scientology sucks" is already a
threat. The rest is completely correct here.
>The book draws parallels between the treatment of Scientologists and
>other minorities in Germany now, as compared to the beginnings of the
>Jewish persecution in Germany. It's an interesting comparison.
It's propaganda. Like the title says: "Hate and Propaganda".
Tilman
Steve A
> Beverly wrote:
>
> >WHO wrote this book? Who published and distributed it?
>
> The full title is HATE AND PROPAGANDA - Documentation of the Hate
> Campaign Against the Scientology Community in Germany. It was
> published 1993 by Church of Scientology International. There is another
> more recent publication entitled THE RISE OF HATRED & VIOLENCE IN
> GERMANY published by FREEDOM MAGAZINE which also gives instances of
> harassment against Scientologists.
FREEDOOM magazine regularly publishes a slew of lies about anyone who
dares to criticise Scientology. Why should any of its other
publications be different?
> - During a 1993 concert in Stadt of Golden Bough, an American folk
> singing group whose members are Scientologists, Christian Democratic
> Union youth affiliate members marched to the stage with banners to
> intimidate and ridicule the musicians.
This is poor, bad PR, and not a nice way to go about things. It is
also free speech, and in my book no worse than a bunch of Scienos
camping on Bonnie Woods's front lawn and screaming abuse.
>Earlier a German magazine
> printed a list of names of musicians who were Scientologists suggesting
> boycotting all musicians on the "hit" list.
Boycotts are a perfectly reasonable form of consumer choice.
Personally, I would prefer not to contribute money to individuals or
businesses who might channel that money into campaigns of harassment
against people I know, like, or respect.
If a magazine starts advocating that shop windows of Scientology
businesses be smashed, or that Scientology musicians be beaten up in
the street, then I strongly suspect that the German government would
be quicker off the mark than most to deal with it: past racially
motivated acts in Germany have been dealt with swiftly and decisively.
>In the fall of 1991 the
> Hamburg city government cancelled their contract at Hamburg's music
> hall, as did the city of Celle due to their "connection" with the Church
> of Scientology.
In the light of the falsehoods spread by Scientology concerning Chick
Corea's problems in Germany, I would want to see a much more
comprehensive description of events surrounding this before I gave the
story any credence.
I strongly suspect that we are talking, once again, about state
funding for concerts, in which case I believe that the state has as
much right as I do to decide whether or not to fund an organisation
that harbours child molesters, and uses its income to finance
inflammatory newspaper campaigns, frame critics and abuse the law.
> - The Kath's, a German family who got into Scientology in 1992, had
> their 3 year old son ostracized from kindergarten after the head of the
> kindergarten told other children not to play with him because he was a
> Scientologist.
I seem to recall that this was an unfounded allegation that was later
proved to be false. Perhaps one of the German posters can clarify?
>The father, Detlef, was forced out of his job at
> Mecklenburge Insurance Company. Detlef attempted to defend Scientology
> at an anti-Scientology rally in Berlin, was called a "devil" and forced
> to leave.
If he was unlawfully sacked, Germany has some of the best employment
protection legislation in Europe, and he would have been able to
challenge his dismissal at a tribunal. Did he? If not, why not? What
were the reasons given for his sacking?
> - Scientologist Klaus Kempe and his wife attempted for 7 years to adopt
> a child, which was denied due to the fact that they were Scientologists.
Not entirely unreasonable. It is bad enough that natural children are
indoctrinated into a religion (ANY religion) - I would suggest that
for the state to wilfully put a child into a Scientology family, given
the record of harm that Scientology does to people's minds, would be a
gross breach of trust.
Anyway, here in the UK, it is very common for apparently perfectly
good adoptive parents to fail to get a child for all sorts of reasons,
none of them to do with religious affiliation. I would not be
surprised to discover that this applied to this couple, too.
> They fought for 7 years in the courts but by the end of that time, the
> issue became moot as both had passed the upper age limit allowed for
> adoption.
Too bad. Time and tide wait for no man. Sometimes life just isn't
fair, whether you're a Scieno or not. That said, you'd have thought a
few OT's could have postulated things so they came out OK: where were
those Gnarly powers when they needed them?
> - In 1992 the Commerz Bank of Hanover closed the business account of
> Hubillus and Partners, a real estate business as "Mr. Kubillus is a
> Scientologist."
Scientologists in real estate in Germany have been up to all sorts of
dirty tricks - indeed, I suspect that their behaviour in this field is
one of the main reasons that they are so unpopular in Germany. If I
were the manager of a bank at which such a businessman held an
account, I would be very concerned at the negative publicity it might
have on my bank, not to mention the fact that such a person might also
be a very bad credit risk.
Banks are businesses, and as such, entitled to make their own business
decisions, subject of course to the prevailing laws.
> - Stuttgart police who witnessed Frank Pass being threatened by a man
> while handling out pamphlets, stood by and did nothing. They then
> seized the pamphlets, took him to police headquarters and fined him for
> not carrying ID at all times.
This sounds like a load of crap. I have it on pretty good authority
(relatives-in-law) that it is virtually impossible to be prosecuted
for not carrying ID. I suspect that, like so much of these claimed
slights, there is more to this story than meets the eye.
Incidentally, what does "threatened" mean?
Furthermore, I was "threatened" by a Scientologist outside the London
org, within feet of a policeman. He did nothing, either, nor did he
need to, since I was in no danger from a woman screaming at me. I
don't have a problem with that.
> The book draws parallels between the treatment of Scientologists and
> other minorities in Germany now, as compared to the beginnings of the
> Jewish persecution in Germany. It's an interesting comparison.
Yes, especially if you lose this Scieno<->Jew fixation and start
looking at the real issue, which is the Scieno<->totalitarian
organisation connection. Germany has suffered as a result of one
totalitarian group seizing power. The German government is bound to
prevent such things happening again, and I believe that they are doing
a good job, in terms of how governments normally manage such things.
If an anti-Scieno Kristallnacht, or anything remotely resembling it,
ever happens, you can be sure that a very large number of people will
be quick to stand up against it. I certainly shall, although I do not
believe that the likelihood will arise.
What Scientology *could* do in Germany is to put a little effort into
trying not to completely piss off the entire German population.
Attacking the state all the time, and publishing newspaper
advertisements showing swastikas, is not a good line to take.
--
Steve A, SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12
ObDenial: I am not Arthur Stevens of Crawley.
ObURLS: Beginners: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html
In-depth: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
Harassment: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/harass/timeline-95.html
Fools, losers, and mugs: http://www.scientology.org
Child molesters! Join Scientology and grope with impunity!
IN MEMORIAM: Richard Collins, John Buchanan, Noah Lottick anon.penet.fi,
rema...@utopia.hacktic.nl, victims of the criminal cult of Scientology.
Tilman Hausherr
In <3272eca0...@news.snafu.de>, til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman
Hausherr) wrote:
>>- August 1990: At the real estate office, the rental contract was
>>written and I signed it. A few days later, an employee of the office
>>called me and told me that I couldn't have the apartment. The
>>apartment owner had said no. He did not want to have sect members in
>>his apartment.
>
>Unlogical. No one says "Hi, I am a scientologist" when applying for an
>apartment. I think more truthful is that someone wanted to open a
>scientolgy org. Also no details.
>
>I suggest you word-clear and clay-demo LRH's text "The anti-social
>personality.... speaks in generalities ... etc". Could someone please
>e-mail me the text?
And here it is, Ernie (or whoever was posting):
HCOB 27 September 1966
THE ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST
"ATTRIBUTES - The anti-social personality has the following attributes:
"1. He or she speaks only in very broad generalities. 'They say...'
'Everybody thinks...' 'Everyone knows...' and such expressions are in
continual use, particularly when imparting rumor. When asked, 'Who is
everybody...' it normally turns out to be one source and from this
source the anti-social person has manufactured what he or she pretends
is the whole opinion of the whole society. This is natural to them since
to them all society is a large hostile generality, against the
anti-social in particular."
[Yes! "The Germans"... while actually (luckily) there are only a
minority who are neo-nazis]
"2. Such a person deals mainly in bad news, critical or hostile
remarks, invalidation and general suppression."
[Applies 100% to Heber Jentzsch]
"3. The anti-social personality alters, to worsen, communication when
he or she relays a message or news. Good news is stopped and only bad
news, often embellished, is passed along."
[True fact. Heber won't bring the good news in Germany]
"4. A characteristic, and one of the sad things about an anti-social
personality, is that it does not respond to treatment or reform or
psychotherapy."
[Yes. Heber would never go see a psychiatrist]
"5. Surrounding such a personality we find cowed or ill associates or
friends who, when not driven actually insane, are yet behaving in a
crippled manner in life, failing, not succeeding."
[Indeed. This is an accurate discription of scientology]
"6. The anti-social personality habitually selects the wrong target."
[Yes. The germans are the wrong target]
"7. The anti-social cannot finish a cycle of action."
[Also true. Heber isn't even able to speak a coherent sentence]
"8. Many anti-social persons will freely confess to the most alarming
crimes when forced to do so, but will have no faintest sense of remorse
or shame therefore."
[Sure. Just bring Heber to a sec check]
Bernie
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk.no.spam.thanx (Steve A) wrote:
>If a magazine starts advocating that shop windows of Scientology
>businesses be smashed, or that Scientology musicians be beaten up in
>the street, then I strongly suspect that the German government would
>be quicker off the mark than most to deal with it: past racially
>motivated acts in Germany have been dealt with swiftly and decisively.
Are you so naive to think it works this way? First you mount an
ultra-negative and hate campaign, then you let the mob take
"appropriate action".
>> - Scientologist Klaus Kempe and his wife attempted for 7 years to adopt
>> a child, which was denied due to the fact that they were Scientologists.
>Not entirely unreasonable. It is bad enough that natural children are
>indoctrinated into a religion (ANY religion)
So you suggest that adoption criteria should also take religious
affiliation into account, and carefully check what the said religion
is teaching about child raising? Actually, according to your
statement, potential adoptive parents should sign a statement that
they aren't member of ANY religion.
[snip justification of discrimination]
>> They fought for 7 years in the courts but by the end of that time, the
>> issue became moot as both had passed the upper age limit allowed for
>> adoption.
>Too bad. Time and tide wait for no man. Sometimes life just isn't
>fair, whether you're a Scieno or not.
You obviously don't care about it, or more precisely you are (not so)
secretly satisfied with this situation. Oh, why. They are
Scientologists of course, it's OK, they are not human anyway.
---------
Bernie
By freedom I understand social conditions of such a kind that the
expression of opinions and assertions about general and particular
matters of knowledge will not involve dangers or serious disadvantages
for him who expresses them.
(Albert Einstein)
Bernie
til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>In <1996102120...@mailmasher.com>, nob...@huge.cajones.com (Huge
>Cajones Remailer) wrote:
>>- November 1989: I received an anonymous call at 3 a.m. and was
>>insulted for being a "sect pig" and was threatened with the "death of
>>all Scientologists."
>This is not "discrimination". This is an abusive phone call.
And the burning of heretics wasn't "discrimination" either, it was
torture. Why play with words? What you refer as "not discrimination"
all along in this post is obviously the ~result~ of discrimination,
providing that these things happened as described, of course.
>>- Scientologist Klaus Kempe and his wife attempted for 7 years to adopt
>>a child, which was denied due to the fact that they were Scientologists.
>>They fought for 7 years in the courts but by the end of that time, the
>>issue became moot as both had passed the upper age limit allowed for
>>adoption.
>No discrimination. Kempe is a hard-core scieno. The concept of "adults
>in small bodies" is not compatible with the general view how children
>should be raised.
The irony in this paragraph is that you start by saying "no
discrimination" and in the next sentence you are doing just that.
There are hundreds and thousands of Scientologists around the world
who are perfectly able to care about their children as well as anyone
else. You are justifying the denial of human beings to adopt a child
based on ~your~ interpretation of ~their~ belief. This is a perfect
example of discrimination, and not a pretty sight, I must say.
---------
Bernie
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Bernie
til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>In <327407f3...@news.ping.be>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>>>This is not "discrimination". This is an abusive phone call.
>>And the burning of heretics wasn't "discrimination" either, it was
>>torture. Why play with words? What you refer as "not discrimination"
>>all along in this post is obviously the ~result~ of discrimination,
>>providing that these things happened as described, of course.
>Prove it. Prove that an abusive phone call is the result of
>"discrimination".
"An" abusive phone call is not necessarily the result of
discrimination, but ~this~ abusive phone call obviously was, as all
the other abusive acts that you choose not to see as the result of
discrimination; if they happened the way they are described of course.
But I think that you prefer to close your eyes and say to yourself
"this is only a coincidence. It is random violence that just happens
to strike at a Scientologist. The fact of many other similar accidents
are pure coincidence as well. A fantastic coincidence. The negative
and biased information I spend my time spreading has nothing to do
with that. I bear no slightest responsibility in what happens".
>>The irony in this paragraph is that you start by saying "no
>>discrimination" and in the next sentence you are doing just that.
>>There are hundreds and thousands of Scientologists around the world
>>who are perfectly able to care about their children as well as anyone
>>else. You are justifying the denial of human beings to adopt a child
>>based on ~your~ interpretation of ~their~ belief. This is a perfect
>>example of discrimination, and not a pretty sight, I must say.
>If these "hundred and thousands" people use scientology to "care" (or
>rather, "handle" since "care", "love", etc., is just a product of the
>reactive mind)
Please cite the reference on which you base yourself to assert that
for Scientology "care" and "love" is just a product of the reactive
mind.
>their children, then this means "hundred and thousands"
>children abused and deprived of their childhood, like Cassie Weigand or
>??? Harthun.
Yea, Weigand and Harthun makes hundreds and thousands. For me it makes
two. You like to portray the attitude of the majority of
scientologists with the few exception. This of course gives a very
truthful picture, doesn't it?
Furthermore, if you read my statement again, you will find out that I
didn't say that they use scientology to care, I said that they are
perfectly able to care for their own children just like any other
human. Of course you do not consider Scientologists as human, that's
another question.
>Luckily some scientologists are smart enough not to use it
>against their children.
You don't understand what Scientology is, Tilman, you only have ideas
about it.
>You should start looking for the rights of the children instead of the
>rights of those who abuse them by indoctrinating them in this system.
"Indoctrination" is only your interpretation, Tilman. Others call it
teaching in what they belief to the best of their knowledge. Are
children being abused because they are "indoctrinated" in the
Christian, Muslim or Buddhist view? It is their ~right~ Tilman, just
as it is your right to teach your children whatever crap you think is
true.
>Your definition of discrimination seems to include also the prosecution
>of mafia members. Hey, they are just people who don't believe in the
>current rules of acquisition.
It does not. If they engage in crime, they should be prosecuted. But
note that even for the mafia this has to be ~proven~. Such is the
civil and judiciary law, whether you like it or not.This is valid for
Scientologists, or anyone else, as well. I always said that
Scientologists should be pursued to the full extent of the law if
there are proof that they violated the law and engaged in criminal
activities. But to support, as you do, the denial of potential parents
to adopt a child for the mere fact of ~your~ interpretation of ~their~
belief is discrimination, and an abhorrent one at that.
Tilman Hausherr
>til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>
>>In <327407f3...@news.ping.be>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>
>>>>This is not "discrimination". This is an abusive phone call.
>
>>>And the burning of heretics wasn't "discrimination" either, it was
>>>torture. Why play with words? What you refer as "not discrimination"
>>>all along in this post is obviously the ~result~ of discrimination,
>>>providing that these things happened as described, of course.
>
>>Prove it. Prove that an abusive phone call is the result of
>>"discrimination".
>
>"An" abusive phone call is not necessarily the result of
>discrimination, but ~this~ abusive phone call obviously was, as all
>the other abusive acts that you choose not to see as the result of
>discrimination; if they happened the way they are described of course.
>But I think that you prefer to close your eyes and say to yourself
>"this is only a coincidence. It is random violence that just happens
>to strike at a Scientologist. The fact of many other similar accidents
>are pure coincidence as well. A fantastic coincidence. The negative
>and biased information I spend my time spreading has nothing to do
>with that. I bear no slightest responsibility in what happens".
And of course it is all the fault of people speaking out against
scientology. So by your standard, we should better not speak out against
scientology or make laws to control it, since some nutcases might do an
abusive phone call.
>
>>>The irony in this paragraph is that you start by saying "no
>>>discrimination" and in the next sentence you are doing just that.
>>>There are hundreds and thousands of Scientologists around the world
>>>who are perfectly able to care about their children as well as anyone
>>>else. You are justifying the denial of human beings to adopt a child
>>>based on ~your~ interpretation of ~their~ belief. This is a perfect
>>>example of discrimination, and not a pretty sight, I must say.
>
>>If these "hundred and thousands" people use scientology to "care" (or
>>rather, "handle" since "care", "love", etc., is just a product of the
>>reactive mind)
>
>Please cite the reference on which you base yourself to assert that
>for Scientology "care" and "love" is just a product of the reactive
>mind.
It is a logical assumption based on the concept that the reactive mind
is the one that does the "spontaneous", "emotional", "silly" stuff, etc.
You won't find "love" or "care" on the tone scale. True scientologists
don't love, they "communicate", they "handle", they "postulate", etc.
>>their children, then this means "hundred and thousands"
>>children abused and deprived of their childhood, like Cassie Weigand or
>>??? Harthun.
>
>Yea, Weigand and Harthun makes hundreds and thousands. For me it makes
>two. You like to portray the attitude of the majority of
>scientologists with the few exception. This of course gives a very
>truthful picture, doesn't it?
These two were two recent ones, from well-known scienos. Should I repost
the affidavit of Yolanda Howell? Or the segment from "The road to Xenu"?
Or the segment from Bruce Gilham who wrote a long success story after he
had realized that it was a good idea to *talk* with his son?
>Furthermore, if you read my statement again, you will find out that I
>didn't say that they use scientology to care, I said that they are
>perfectly able to care for their own children just like any other
>human. Of course you do not consider Scientologists as human, that's
>another question.
I do consider scientologists to be human, but I do not consider "true"
scientologists to be able to care for their children, and luckily the
german adoption agencies see this so too.
>>Luckily some scientologists are smart enough not to use it
>>against their children.
>
>You don't understand what Scientology is, Tilman, you only have ideas
>about it.
Sure, I should enter scientology and waste a few years to be allowed to
discuss about it.
>>You should start looking for the rights of the children instead of the
>>rights of those who abuse them by indoctrinating them in this system.
>
>"Indoctrination" is only your interpretation, Tilman. Others call it
>teaching in what they belief to the best of their knowledge. Are
>children being abused because they are "indoctrinated" in the
>Christian, Muslim or Buddhist view? It is their ~right~ Tilman, just
>as it is your right to teach your children whatever crap you think is
>true.
No it ain't when it's scientology. And german, english and american
courts see this like me. Scientology cannot be compared to Christian,
Muslim or Buddhist religions.
>>Your definition of discrimination seems to include also the prosecution
>>of mafia members. Hey, they are just people who don't believe in the
>>current rules of acquisition.
>
>It does not. If they engage in crime, they should be prosecuted. But
>note that even for the mafia this has to be ~proven~. Such is the
>civil and judiciary law, whether you like it or not.This is valid for
>Scientologists, or anyone else, as well. I always said that
>Scientologists should be pursued to the full extent of the law if
>there are proof that they violated the law and engaged in criminal
>activities. But to support, as you do, the denial of potential parents
>to adopt a child for the mere fact of ~your~ interpretation of ~their~
>belief is discrimination, and an abhorrent one at that.
Sure, give scientology all the children they want. And while we're at
it, give a few to the Mooniex, the AUMies, Thakar Singh, etc. Let's just
wait until the children get 21. And if they don't complain, then we
won't prosecute.
I'm getting tired of so-called "ex-scientologists" (actually, it's only
you) who use all their energy to support the rights of this contemptouus
cult. What are you - a stepson of Gordon Melton and Eileen Barker?
Tilman
Bernie
til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>In <32767aea...@news.ping.be>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>>til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>And of course it is all the fault of people speaking out against
>scientology. So by your standard, we should better not speak out against
>scientology or make laws to control it, since some nutcases might do an
>abusive phone call.
We should not make new law to control it, that's for sure. Existing
laws are sufficient. Most of the time, new law or twist of law
proposed to "control cults" results from discrimination and creates
further discrimination. This is best illustrated by what is happening
in Germany. The recent Federal decision not to support the proposition
of some of the Länder was entirely correct.
As for speaking out, sure we should, but we should try to provide fair
information, not concentrate on ultra negative information and
misrepresentations. This is often what happens, however. By depicting
the cult as "evil", it is des-humanized and people find it OK to
assault and abuse their members. This is the result of
des-information, not the result of information. Information increases
understanding, and therefore does not encourage violent or
discriminatory acts.
>>>If these "hundred and thousands" people use scientology to "care" (or
>>>rather, "handle" since "care", "love", etc., is just a product of the
>>>reactive mind)
>>Please cite the reference on which you base yourself to assert that
>>for Scientology "care" and "love" is just a product of the reactive
>>mind.
>It is a logical assumption based on the concept that the reactive mind
>is the one that does the "spontaneous", "emotional", "silly" stuff, etc.
If this is a logical assumption, your logic must be false, or your
information on which it is based must be false, since it isn't the
case. This is the kind of misrepresentation you use to "explain" what
Scientology really is to outsiders. Any Scientologist would just laugh
at you. It isn't very effective therefore for exit-counseling either.
>You won't find "love" or "care" on the tone scale. True scientologists
>don't love, they "communicate", they "handle", they "postulate", etc.
No, they don't love of course, they aren't human.
>>Yea, Weigand and Harthun makes hundreds and thousands. For me it makes
>>two. You like to portray the attitude of the majority of
>>scientologists with the few exception. This of course gives a very
>>truthful picture, doesn't it?
>These two were two recent ones, from well-known scienos. Should I repost
>the affidavit of Yolanda Howell? Or the segment from "The road to Xenu"?
>Or the segment from Bruce Gilham who wrote a long success story after he
>had realized that it was a good idea to *talk* with his son?
Does the above nutcase making abusive phone calls, or the one shooting
people outside orgs represent a behavior typical of the majority of
critics? I don't think so, but the COS does. When you use a few cases
to imply that the vast majority of Scientologists aren't able to love
their own children, you are doing exactly the same. These cases show
that abuses ~can~ happen, and in this sense they can be useful, but it
is a misrepresentation to use them to paint all Scientologists with
the same brush, and you are doing the same wrong as the cult-member to
which you object to when you use these cases as a discrimination
weapon against all Scientologists.
>I do consider scientologists to be human, but I do not consider "true"
>scientologists to be able to care for their children
Therefore, in actuality, you don't consider them to be human, because
the very vast majority of humans do care for their children, even the
most criminal ones.
Of course you cannot ~say~ that you do not consider them as human, or
maybe don't even realize it, but in practice, you do not. What matters
is what you do, and in this case you are supporting a clear
discrimination case, all the while thinking that you are doing
something "good". Cult members go through the same process.
>, and luckily the
>german adoption agencies see this so too.
That's why it is discrimination. If this can be proven in Court, the
responsible would be condemned, and it would be fully deserved. If it
turns out that they were enticed in doing so by an outside informant,
this person could be indicted too, and should.
>>You don't understand what Scientology is, Tilman, you only have ideas
>>about it.
>Sure, I should enter scientology and waste a few years to be allowed to
>discuss about it.
No, although it would help :-) especially if during that time you are
the direct recipient of discrimination, so that you could have at
least the taste of it.
>>>You should start looking for the rights of the children instead of the
>>>rights of those who abuse them by indoctrinating them in this system.
>>"Indoctrination" is only your interpretation, Tilman. Others call it
>>teaching in what they belief to the best of their knowledge. Are
>>children being abused because they are "indoctrinated" in the
>>Christian, Muslim or Buddhist view? It is their ~right~ Tilman, just
>>as it is your right to teach your children whatever crap you think is
>>true.
>No it ain't when it's scientology. And german, english and american
>courts see this like me.
What exactly do they see like you? That you can't teach Scientology to
your children? Do they all backup your assertion, like in the sentence
"german, english and american courts"? Which German, English and
American cases can you cite?
>Scientology cannot be compared to Christian,
>Muslim or Buddhist religions.
That's another question. The point is that a Scientologist believes in
Scientology the way a Christian believes in the Bible and a Muslim in
Islam. Naturally, he will teach his kids in what he believes, since
for him that is what is best. The fact that the philosophy sustaining
these beliefs is correct or not is not for the State or one of its
agency to decide or interfere with.
The same goes for discrimination in the business area, and your
Federal State reminded its citizen about their civil duties in the
most judicious way by stating that
"only economic considerations are to be taken into account
when deciding who can enter into a public contract with the
government. It can not be used as a means to dispense
sanctions or as a control mechanism in pursuit of
socio-political aims."
>>>Your definition of discrimination seems to include also the prosecution
>>>of mafia members. Hey, they are just people who don't believe in the
>>>current rules of acquisition.
>>It does not. If they engage in crime, they should be prosecuted. But
>>note that even for the mafia this has to be ~proven~. Such is the
>>civil and judiciary law, whether you like it or not.This is valid for
>>Scientologists, or anyone else, as well. I always said that
>>Scientologists should be pursued to the full extent of the law if
>>there are proof that they violated the law and engaged in criminal
>>activities. But to support, as you do, the denial of potential parents
>>to adopt a child for the mere fact of ~your~ interpretation of ~their~
>>belief is discrimination, and an abhorrent one at that.
>Sure, give scientology all the children they want.
I didn't say that. They should go through the same procedure as anyone
else, not less, not more.
>And while we're at
>it, give a few to the Mooniex, the AUMies, Thakar Singh, etc.
If they live in a communal setting and they don't earn enough to
sustain themselves and their children, then this is an objective
element that could play against them in the procedure. But if they
meet all the criteria required for anyone else, then their belief is
not an element that can be held against them.
>Let's just
>wait until the children get 21. And if they don't complain, then we
>won't prosecute.
There are some very stringent criteria for the follow up as well, I
believe. If there is any objective elements for prosecution, then they
should be pursued, just like for any other person.
>I'm getting tired of so-called "ex-scientologists" (actually, it's only
>you) who use all their energy to support the rights of this contemptouus
>cult. What are you - a stepson of Gordon Melton and Eileen Barker?
To tell you the truth, I am getting tired too. I would prefer to
criticize the COS. The problem is that I don't find the time for it
because I have to spend it against those things I find even more
contemptuous and dangerous, such as the matter at hand.
Supporting injustice, all in the name of the Holy Jeehad, is not the
way to go about fighting the COS. It is counter-productive and a waste
of everybody's time.
---------
Bernie
A free and open exchange of information is enough to take care of
relegating the scienos to the scrap-heap of history.
(Dennis L. Erlich)
Tilman Hausherr
>As for speaking out, sure we should, but we should try to provide fair
>information, not concentrate on ultra negative information and
>misrepresentations. This is often what happens, however. By depicting
>the cult as "evil", it is des-humanized and people find it OK to
>assault and abuse their members. This is the result of
>des-information, not the result of information. Information increases
>understanding, and therefore does not encourage violent or
>discriminatory acts.
Scientology has been called "evil" by a UK (ort Australian?) Judge, and
has been called "contemptouus" by a german court.
I have seen the evil. Thousands have seen scientology and scientologists
doing it, right here on the net.
The sampling is done in a different way. *Every* shooting in an org gets
registered. While a scientologist applying scientology to his children
(i.e. not caring) can be found rather easily. I have even more sources
than the ones I mentioned. Like the SP Times article.
>>I do consider scientologists to be human, but I do not consider "true"
>>scientologists to be able to care for their children
>
>Therefore, in actuality, you don't consider them to be human, because
>the very vast majority of humans do care for their children, even the
>most criminal ones.
>
>Of course you cannot ~say~ that you do not consider them as human, or
>maybe don't even realize it, but in practice, you do not. What matters
>is what you do, and in this case you are supporting a clear
>discrimination case, all the while thinking that you are doing
>something "good". Cult members go through the same process.
So whatever I say, I lose.
>>, and luckily the
>>german adoption agencies see this so too.
>
>That's why it is discrimination. If this can be proven in Court, the
>responsible would be condemned, and it would be fully deserved. If it
>turns out that they were enticed in doing so by an outside informant,
>this person could be indicted too, and should.
Obviously your opinion can't be proven in court, since Klaus Kempe has
not alleged that he won.
>>>You don't understand what Scientology is, Tilman, you only have ideas
>>>about it.
>
>>Sure, I should enter scientology and waste a few years to be allowed to
>>discuss about it.
>
>No, although it would help :-) especially if during that time you are
>the direct recipient of discrimination, so that you could have at
>least the taste of it.
Yeah, like the mafia is discriminated.
>
>>>>You should start looking for the rights of the children instead of the
>>>>rights of those who abuse them by indoctrinating them in this system.
>
>>>"Indoctrination" is only your interpretation, Tilman. Others call it
>>>teaching in what they belief to the best of their knowledge. Are
>>>children being abused because they are "indoctrinated" in the
>>>Christian, Muslim or Buddhist view? It is their ~right~ Tilman, just
>>>as it is your right to teach your children whatever crap you think is
>>>true.
>
>>No it ain't when it's scientology. And german, english and american
>>courts see this like me.
>
>What exactly do they see like you? That you can't teach Scientology to
>your children? Do they all backup your assertion, like in the sentence
>"german, english and american courts"? Which German, English and
>American cases can you cite?
American: it's a case that Ford Greene won, and that can be read in
AFF's CSJ. Another (or same?) case was Bob Penny's case that can be
found on the FACTNet pages.
English: The Latey case.
German: OLG Frankfurt 6WF 5/94: Dad refused to let Mom see child, DM
5000.- fine set, OLG dismisses fine because of publicly discussed danger
of membership in scientology for child, wants to wait for expert
testimony. (Rest unknown) See also that scientology was denied to open a
school in Germany.
>>Scientology cannot be compared to Christian,
>>Muslim or Buddhist religions.
>
>That's another question. The point is that a Scientologist believes in
>Scientology the way a Christian believes in the Bible and a Muslim in
>Islam. Naturally, he will teach his kids in what he believes, since
>for him that is what is best. The fact that the philosophy sustaining
>these beliefs is correct or not is not for the State or one of its
>agency to decide or interfere with.
>
>The same goes for discrimination in the business area, and your
>Federal State reminded its citizen about their civil duties in the
>most judicious way by stating that
>
> "only economic considerations are to be taken into account
> when deciding who can enter into a public contract with the
> government. It can not be used as a means to dispense
> sanctions or as a control mechanism in pursuit of
> socio-political aims."
I have doubts about the accuracy of that article. Several states refuse
to do business WISE-like companies. Of course, you consider this to be
discrimination, since the scienos are refused the opportunity to
brainwash public servants.
>>>>Your definition of discrimination seems to include also the prosecution
>>>>of mafia members. Hey, they are just people who don't believe in the
>>>>current rules of acquisition.
>
>>>It does not. If they engage in crime, they should be prosecuted. But
>>>note that even for the mafia this has to be ~proven~. Such is the
>>>civil and judiciary law, whether you like it or not.This is valid for
>>>Scientologists, or anyone else, as well. I always said that
>>>Scientologists should be pursued to the full extent of the law if
>>>there are proof that they violated the law and engaged in criminal
>>>activities. But to support, as you do, the denial of potential parents
>>>to adopt a child for the mere fact of ~your~ interpretation of ~their~
>>>belief is discrimination, and an abhorrent one at that.
>
>>Sure, give scientology all the children they want.
>
>I didn't say that. They should go through the same procedure as anyone
>else, not less, not more.
They are going to the "same procedure". And the current situation is the
result of it.
>>And while we're at
>>it, give a few to the Mooniex, the AUMies, Thakar Singh, etc.
>
>If they live in a communal setting and they don't earn enough to
>sustain themselves and their children, then this is an objective
>element that could play against them in the procedure. But if they
>meet all the criteria required for anyone else, then their belief is
>not an element that can be held against them.
They don't. What they do is child abuse. These children are refused a
future. Children in cults - this is the worst I can think of for
children. They have never the opportunity to know real life.
>>Let's just
>>wait until the children get 21. And if they don't complain, then we
>>won't prosecute.
>
>There are some very stringent criteria for the follow up as well, I
>believe. If there is any objective elements for prosecution, then they
>should be pursued, just like for any other person.
Yeah, but prosecution is "discrimination" again.
>>I'm getting tired of so-called "ex-scientologists" (actually, it's only
>>you) who use all their energy to support the rights of this contemptouus
>>cult. What are you - a stepson of Gordon Melton and Eileen Barker?
>
>To tell you the truth, I am getting tired too. I would prefer to
>criticize the COS. The problem is that I don't find the time for it
>because I have to spend it against those things I find even more
>contemptuous and dangerous, such as the matter at hand.
>
>Supporting injustice, all in the name of the Holy Jeehad, is not the
>way to go about fighting the COS. It is counter-productive and a waste
>of everybody's time.
>
>---------
>Bernie
>
>A free and open exchange of information is enough to take care of
>relegating the scienos to the scrap-heap of history.
The scienos do consider that to be a "human rights violation".
Spokesperson Hackenjos said this.
Tilman
Bernie
til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
No it's not, but what is the use to explain the whole thing again? You
didn't get it and you probably won't, or you are deliberately twisting
things around, or both.
Bye.
---------
Bernie
No one *forces* you to argue with someone
on Usenet whom you find unreasonable.
(Rebecca Hartong)
Jim Kalergis
Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
> >
> >>If these "hundred and thousands" people use scientology to "care" (or
> >>rather, "handle" since "care", "love", etc., is just a product of the
> >>reactive mind)
>
> It is a logical assumption based on the concept that the reactive mind
> is the one that does the "spontaneous", "emotional", "silly" stuff, etc.
> You won't find "love" or "care" on the tone scale. True scientologists
> don't love, they "communicate", they "handle", they "postulate", etc.
I am a true Scientologist and I love my children more than anything
else on God's green earth.
You don't know me, Tilman. You don't know my family, my friends, or their
children. I imagine it's safe to say that you've never had any personal
contact
with a Scientology family.
And yet you have the fucking nerve to sit behind your keyboard in full
dramatizing nazi mode and post crap like this?
> I do consider scientologists to be human
> but I do not consider "true"
> scientologists to be able to care for their children, and luckily the
> german adoption agencies see this so too.
>
> >>Luckily some scientologists are smart enough not to use it
> >>against their children.
Yeah, I use it "against" my children all the time. Like when my older
daughter's cat died and she was grief stricken. I gave her 2 hours of
auditing and she bounced back fine. Or the time my younger girl
was having trouble in school and it wasn't sorting out. I applied
some Hubbard data eval tech "against" her and she was flying again
in no time.
> No it ain't when it's scientology. And german, english and american
> courts see this like me. Scientology cannot be compared to Christian,
> Muslim or Buddhist religions.
Say the word and I will post to this newsgroup several million bits
worth of court documents which say otherwise.
Even if Scientology really were the evil cult you and other ARS critics
like to think it is, you and your kind would still pose a far greater
threat
to the world and those around you than any cult ever could.
Your dramatization is so intense that you are forced to spend every
waking moment making it somehow all make sense, lest you lose
your sanity completely. To this end you collect all manner of "proof"
as to the evil nature of your targets and intended victims. You then cling
to that "proof" of evil in others like it is the very word of God, rather
than
confront the warped and evil sickness of your own soul.
Jim
Jon Noring
In article "Jim Kalergis" <JKal...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>And yet you have the fucking nerve to sit behind your keyboard in full
>dramatizing nazi mode and post crap like this?
'nazi mode'?
>Even if Scientology really were the evil cult you and other ARS critics
>like to think it is, you and your kind would still pose a far greater
>threat to the world and those around you than any cult ever could.
The hard evidence contradicts your assertion.
Jon Noring
--
OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP:
South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
801-253-4037 | E-mail: omni...@netcom.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the Electronic Books Mailing List (EBOOK-List) Today! Just send e-mail
to majo...@aros.net, and put the following line in the body of the message:
subscribe ebook-list
Jim Kalergis
I received email which prompts me to post a disclaimer to the above
referenced
article.
Not by any stretch of the imagination did I mean to imply that what I wrote
about Tilman applies universally to ARS critics.
Jim
Jon Noring
In article "Jim Kalergis" <JKal...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
I'm sure I speak for many here that we appreciate this!
So, now all we need to discuss is whether what you ascribe to Tilman is
accurate. :^)
Tilman Hausherr
Jim:
You'll understand that I won't go along with your "head on a pike"
thread name. So the answer will be on
"Scientologists and their children".
Tilman
In article <01bbc670$bed3a9c0$d025eea5@jimkaler>, "Jim says...
>
>
>
>Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>> >
>> >>If these "hundred and thousands" people use scientology to "care" (or
>> >>rather, "handle" since "care", "love", etc., is just a product of the
>> >>reactive mind)
>>
>> It is a logical assumption based on the concept that the reactive mind
>> is the one that does the "spontaneous", "emotional", "silly" stuff, etc.
>> You won't find "love" or "care" on the tone scale. True scientologists
>> don't love, they "communicate", they "handle", they "postulate", etc.
>
>I am a true Scientologist and I love my children more than anything
>else on God's green earth.
>
>You don't know me, Tilman. You don't know my family, my friends, or their
>children. I imagine it's safe to say that you've never had any personal
>contact
>with a Scientology family.
>
>And yet you have the fucking nerve to sit behind your keyboard in full
>dramatizing nazi mode and post crap like this?
>
>> I do consider scientologists to be human
>> but I do not consider "true"
>> scientologists to be able to care for their children, and luckily the
>> german adoption agencies see this so too.
>>
>> >>Luckily some scientologists are smart enough not to use it
>> >>against their children.
>
>Yeah, I use it "against" my children all the time. Like when my older
>daughter's cat died and she was grief stricken. I gave her 2 hours of
>auditing and she bounced back fine. Or the time my younger girl
>was having trouble in school and it wasn't sorting out. I applied
>some Hubbard data eval tech "against" her and she was flying again
>in no time.
>
>> No it ain't when it's scientology. And german, english and american
>> courts see this like me. Scientology cannot be compared to Christian,
>> Muslim or Buddhist religions.
>
>Say the word and I will post to this newsgroup several million bits
>worth of court documents which say otherwise.
>
>Even if Scientology really were the evil cult you and other ARS critics
>like to think it is, you and your kind would still pose a far greater
>threat
>to the world and those around you than any cult ever could.
>
>Your dramatization is so intense that you are forced to spend every
>waking moment making it somehow all make sense, lest you lose
>your sanity completely. To this end you collect all manner of "proof"
>as to the evil nature of your targets and intended victims. You then cling
>to that "proof" of evil in others like it is the very word of God, rather
>than
>confront the warped and evil sickness of your own soul.
>
>Jim
>
>
Jim Kalergis
Hi Barbara,
After looking up Tilman via Deja News and reading enough of his stuff to
become truly nauseated, I am of the opinion that the "nazi" reference
is entirely appropriate in Tilman's case. If it walks like a duck and
quacks like
a duck, why not call it a duck?
You of course are free to take me seriously or not as you see fit.
Jim
Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
<55b42n$a...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>...
> In article <01bbc670$bed3a9c0$d025eea5@jimkaler>,
> Jim Kalergis <JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> >You don't know me, Tilman. You don't know my family, my friends, or
their
> >children. I imagine it's safe to say that you've never had any personal
> >contact with a Scientology family.
> >
> >And yet you have the fucking nerve to sit behind your keyboard in full
> >dramatizing nazi mode and post crap like this?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> With this contemptible usage you have forfeited the right to be taken
> seriously.
>
> *plonk*
>
> --Barbara
>
>
Josh
Jim Kalergis (JKal...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: You don't know me, Tilman. You don't know my family, my friends, or their
: children. I imagine it's safe to say that you've never had any personal
: contact
: with a Scientology family.
: And yet you have the fucking nerve to sit behind your keyboard in full
: dramatizing nazi mode and post crap like this?
Here it comes again, call Tilman a Nazi because you're backed in a corner
with nothing to do but spew out DA.
Your stupid cult's swirling down the tubes.
What do you tell your kids when they ask if their daddy really believes
that he is infested with parasitic little dead-alien souls? And that he
blieves lord Xenu is fenced up somewhere?
--
=====================================================================
Joshua J. Lowe - / - bo...@newworld.bridge.net/bo...@shadow.net
=====================================================================
Bev
So Tilman is the flavor of the month for Co$.
That means you have been effective. They don't go after
people who are ineffective.
Beverly
Tilman Hausherr
In <01bbc6e4$59e14800$d524eea5@jimkaler>, "Jim Kalergis"
<JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Hi Barbara,
>
>After looking up Tilman via Deja News and reading enough of his stuff to
>become truly nauseated, I am of the opinion that the "nazi" reference
>is entirely appropriate in Tilman's case. If it walks like a duck and
Any examples to back up your allegation? Or are you an "anti-social
person", so you have to speak in generalities?
Scott McClare
In article <01bbc670$bed3a9c0$d025eea5@jimkaler>,
Jim Kalergis <JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>And yet you have the fucking nerve to sit behind your keyboard in full
>dramatizing nazi mode and post crap like this?
1. "Full dramatizing nazi mode" is Scientologese. Unless you're
looking for an ARSCC Ethics Condition, speak English please.
2. You have an M/U on "Nazi," which has a very specific meaning. And
had you looked it up in the dictionary the way Almighty Ron told you
to, you'd know it's spelled with a capital N anyway.
3. Why do you Scientology <tm> brand clones have such a thing with
Germans and Nazis anyway? I would have assumed that it was just a
bank response or something, then I remembered that you were an OT8.
That's OK, I guess that in your case you're just a stupid git.
Your Amends formula: Spot a clue. Continue until cognition.
Scott
--
Scott A. McClare SP 3, GGBC 42, KoX
Scott's Chunk of the Web <http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/samcclar/>
Criminal Cult <http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/samcclar/Scientology/>
"Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau" - William Blake
Lance S. Buckley
The deeply suppressive "Jim Kalergis" <JKal...@worldnet.att.net>
managed to write during a rare fit of unreasonableness:
[snip]
>And yet you have the fucking nerve to sit behind your keyboard in full
>dramatizing nazi mode and post crap like this?
You have the fucking nerve to sit behind your keyboard in full
dramatizing scieno mode and post crap like this?
[snip]
>confront the warped and evil sickness of your own soul.
Confront the warped and evil sickness of your Mind Control Cult.
Go fry a bug OT boy.
Lance.
--
http://www.avalon.demon.co.uk/
"We would only destroy people who attempt to harm Scientology"
Jaques Vollet, Ex-head of GO-B1(Eu) currently head of OSA Invest(Eu)
[ SP4 : GGBC #26 : ARSCC(UK) : J&D : KoX : KbM #11 ]
My Other Hat's A Fedora
Lance S. Buckley
The deeply suppressive "Jim Kalergis" <JKal...@worldnet.att.net>
managed to write during a rare fit of unreasonableness:
>After looking up Tilman via Deja News and reading enough of his stuff to
>become truly nauseated, I am of the opinion that the "nazi" reference
>is entirely appropriate in Tilman's case. If it walks like a duck and
>quacks like
>a duck, why not call it a duck?
>You of course are free to take me seriously or not as you see fit.
I am of the opinion that my "Mind Control Cult of Scientology(tm)"
reference is entirely appropriate in every case. If it walks like a
Mind Control Cult and talks like a Mind Control Cult, why not call it
a Mind Control Cult?
You of course are free to help forward the enemy line by communicating
with SPs and thereby committing a supressive act or not, or just have
a conniption fit.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <01bbc6e4$59e14800$d524eea5@jimkaler>, Jim Kalergis writes:
>
> If it walks like a duck and
>quacks like
>a duck, why not call it a duck?
dadomdadom dadomdadom dadom: TRALOOO (vftht) ! TRALOO (vthft) !
Crash!! Bang!! Thud!! ploppitty-plop-plop
|
| How is it that you charge into the newsgroup trumpeting and farting
| like jimbo the disenteric elephant, knocking things over and
| dumping your load about the place in your rush to find relief?
If it charges in like an elephant, trumpets like an elephant....
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on alt.religion.scientology *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |___&_http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk_________________________|/_______| L
/clam/faq/woofglug.html
Bernie
nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote:
>In article "Jim Kalergis" <JKal...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>I received email which prompts me to post a disclaimer to the above
>>referenced article.
>>Not by any stretch of the imagination did I mean to imply that what I wrote
>>about Tilman applies universally to ARS critics.
>I'm sure I speak for many here that we appreciate this!
>So, now all we need to discuss is whether what you ascribe to Tilman is
>accurate. :^)
Indeed. Please go in the thread "Re: Hollywood stars attack
German's scientology policy" and check the whole exchange between
Tilman and myself and tell us if you can understand why Jim
arrived to this somewhat overstated statement. I would like to
have other opinions on this.
---------
Bernie
You cannot teach a man anything. You can
only help him to find it within himself.
(Galileo)
st...@swhitlat.com
|> Indeed. Please go in the thread "Re: Hollywood stars attack
|> German's scientology policy" and check the whole exchange between
|> Tilman and myself and tell us if you can understand why Jim
|> arrived to this somewhat overstated statement. I would like to
|> have other opinions on this.
Yes, OK. Well, . . . Tillman came out smelling like a rose.
Bernie, are you an OT? If so, tell us about Xenu and BTs!
Thanks,
Steve Whitlatch
swhi...@aimnet.com
--
Honesty cures scientology.
Bev
Tilman Hausherr wrote:
>
> In <01bbc6e4$59e14800$d524eea5@jimkaler>, "Jim Kalergis"
> <JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Hi Barbara,
> >
> >After looking up Tilman via Deja News and reading enough of his stuff to
> >become truly nauseated, I am of the opinion that the "nazi" reference
> >quacks like a duck, why not call it a duck?
> Any examples to back up your allegation? Or are you an "anti-social
> person", so you have to speak in generalities?
Well, actually Tilman, I THINK Jim was accusing you of being a DUCK!!
Beverly
Bernie
til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>In <01bbc6e4$59e14800$d524eea5@jimkaler>, "Jim Kalergis"
><JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Hi Barbara,
>>After looking up Tilman via Deja News and reading enough of his stuff to
>>become truly nauseated, I am of the opinion that the "nazi" reference
>>is entirely appropriate in Tilman's case. If it walks like a duck and
>Any examples to back up your allegation? Or are you an "anti-social
>person", so you have to speak in generalities?
I don't support the "Nazi" allegation, but the "Re: Hollywood
stars attack German's scientology policy" thread Jim referred to
initially is a good example on how far you are willing to go in
your fight against "evil", Tilman. I think that anyone with some
remains of humanity will understand Jim's reaction.
---------
Bernie
Mollusks have feelings too ... ya' know?
(Dennis L.Erlich)
Tilman Hausherr
>I don't support the "Nazi" allegation, but the "Re: Hollywood
>stars attack German's scientology policy" thread Jim referred to
>initially is a good example on how far you are willing to go in
>your fight against "evil", Tilman. I think that anyone with some
>remains of humanity will understand Jim's reaction.
Jim's reaction is easy to understand: Anti-Scientologists are criminals
(per Hubbard), I criticize scientology, he reads scientology propaganda,
I am a german, therefore I *must* be a nazi.
100% standard tech is that Jim has gone into hiding; his "theta" post
turned to to be even more damaging evidence than much than what I had
seen before, thus producing more "entheta" from me.
Number 3
In article <01bbc670$bed3a9c0$d025eea5@jimkaler>,
"Jim Kalergis" <JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>
[clip]
>
> You don't know me, Tilman. You don't know my family, my friends, or their
> children. I imagine it's safe to say that you've never had any personal
> contact with a Scientology family.
>
> And yet you have the fucking nerve to sit behind your keyboard in full
> dramatizing nazi mode and post crap like this?
godwin's law says the debate is over, and kalergis has lost.
it's a shame the scientologists can't rid themselves of the
reactive german-nazi association, especially when germany and
germans are if anything more actively anti-nazi than almost
anywhere else.
so instead of striving for a new and more accurate reaction,
scientos make statements like the above that just might
be considered criminal if made in germany.
[clip]
>
> Yeah, I use it "against" my children all the time. Like when my older
> daughter's cat died and she was grief stricken. I gave her 2 hours of
> auditing and she bounced back fine. Or the time my younger girl
> was having trouble in school and it wasn't sorting out. I applied
> some Hubbard data eval tech "against" her and she was flying again
> in no time.
actually, i find this description pretty revolting.
when my daughter's pets died, i found it a time to
provide real, human, emotional support, and to help
her develop a better understanding of major real-world
things like life and death.
>
> > No it ain't when it's scientology. And german, english and american
> > courts see this like me. Scientology cannot be compared to Christian,
> > Muslim or Buddhist religions.
>
> Say the word and I will post to this newsgroup several million bits
> worth of court documents which say otherwise.
we've seen a good part of it, and refuted most of it.
but what the heck, andrew milne hasn't been on for many
months now.
>
[clip]
Alan Furman
In article <seekon-0211...@sjx-ca50-04.ix.netcom.com>,
Number 3 <see...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <01bbc670$bed3a9c0$d025eea5@jimkaler>,
>"Jim Kalergis" <JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>>
>[clip]
>>
>> You don't know me, Tilman. You don't know my family, my friends, or their
>> children. I imagine it's safe to say that you've never had any personal
>> contact with a Scientology family.
>>
>> And yet you have the fucking nerve to sit behind your keyboard in full
>> dramatizing nazi mode and post crap like this?
>
> godwin's law says the debate is over, and kalergis has lost.
"Godwin's Law" is the first resort of the feebleminded.
--
====al...@aimnet.com * LPC * LPUSA * ISIL * IOS * KoX * Netscab Squealer====
VOTE BROWNE/JORGENSEN http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/ * UBI LIBERTAS IBI PATRIA
=="I don't want to hear any of that Amy Rand stuff." - Jim Bolger, PM of NZ==
Marion Delgado
: >In <32767aea...@news.ping.be>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
: >>til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
: >And of course it is all the fault of people speaking out against
: >scientology. So by your standard, we should better not speak out against
: >scientology or make laws to control it, since some nutcases might do an
: >abusive phone call.
: We should not make new law to control it, that's for sure. Existing
: laws are sufficient. Most of the time, new law or twist of law
: proposed to "control cults" results from discrimination and creates
: further discrimination. This is best illustrated by what is happening
: in Germany. The recent Federal decision not to support the proposition
: of some of the Länder was entirely correct.
: As for speaking out, sure we should, but we should try to provide fair
: information, not concentrate on ultra negative information and
: misrepresentations. This is often what happens, however. By depicting
: the cult as "evil", it is des-humanized and people find it OK to
: assault and abuse their members. This is the result of
: des-information, not the result of information. Information increases
: understanding, and therefore does not encourage violent or
: discriminatory acts.
Bernie, if you don't believe in evil, fine. You have every right to that
opinion. I don't share it. A lot of what the Church of Scientology does
is evil, for example by the standards of Emmanuel Kant. The church utilizes
people as tools, using fraud as a control mechanism. If and when they do
something evil, it would not be helpful to sugar-coat it. And having that
opinion, I will go on describing evil actions by the CoS as evil. Deal
with it or not, why should I or anyone else care? You are making a very
vague, weak case so far.
Marion Delgado
P.S. Where do you get this misconception we hate the people in the CoS?
People like me are *unconcerned* about people who have made the foolish
choice to get involved with Scientology, but we don't hate them. If their
nut cult tells them to trash the Internet, we won't respect that as a
religious choice, admittedly. Other people like Martin Hunt and Ted Mayett
are so *concerned* with them that they try to get them out!
Obviously I am in what might be labelled the Diane Richardson camp --
respect people's choices, don't interfere unless you have some personal
connection, but fight general misbehavior as you would by anyone else. You
used to seem to be in that camp, too. What's going on? Lately it's been a
lot of unbelievable B.S. about how the Church isn't doing things it's
clearly doing.
The hate campaign is *not* starting on the critical side. The church in
Germany regarded the government as an easy target and found out they
weren't. So now there is this retarded hate campaign against Germany.
The scientologists decided hackers could thwart them from censoring the
internet. Suddenly gigabytes of posts and articles etc. focus on the
hackers as this big menace of the century. And on and on it goes. Tell
*me* they haven't waged a one-sided hate campaign against psychiatrists
for decades!! And like the Moonies, they flowed neatly into the fanatic
anti-communist witch-hunt mentality in America.
: >>>If these "hundred and thousands" people use scientology to "care" (or
: ---------
: Bernie
Really I agree with you in principle and in theory. But you are utterly
dodging the main issue here and twisting Tilmann's words -- what he is
saying is that the religion teaches you to raise children in an uncaring
way ... do you agree or disagree?
Scientology and the Children of God are the only two cults that I would
say that about, myself. I think good parenting is directly in conflict
with Tech. I also think that can be backed up by Source.
It is certainly a bad idea to single out Scientology in a blanket way and
make a firm policy against letting Scientologists adopt children. But if
a couple of starry-eyed Scientologists are planning to follow Tech and
neglect their children, how can the government prevent that if the Church
is going to cry "discrimination?" Just tell me other religions don't have
the same problems, including the dominant ones. All of them have to make
compromises with social policies. The school voucher issue in America is
half about education and half about religion.
I do agree Scientologists have every right to teach Scientology to their
kids. And that blanket laws against Scientologists are wrong. But if an
adoption worker said they didn't want to place a child with a particular
Scientologist couple, whose decision should that be?
: A free and open exchange of information is enough to take care of
: relegating the scienos to the scrap-heap of history.
: (Dennis L. Erlich)
--
"The spectacle is a permanent opium war which aims to make people
identify goods with commodities and satisfaction with survival that
increases according to its own laws."
-- Guy Debord --
"There was a swirling mass of water that lived in a quiet pond which asked
permission of its master to visit all the lands beyond and its master
allowed it to fly so the wind swept the whirlpool across the sky."
-- The Meat Puppets --
"Diane, it struck me again earlier this morning: there are two things
that continue to trouble me, and I am speaking now not only as an agent of
the Bureau but also as a human being. What really went on between Marilyn
Monroe and the Kennedys, and who really pulled the trigger on JFK?"
- Special Agent Dale B. Cooper -
Cornelius Krasel
Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:
> I don't support the "Nazi" allegation, but the "Re: Hollywood
> stars attack German's scientology policy" thread Jim referred to
> initially is a good example on how far you are willing to go in
> your fight against "evil", Tilman.
What's the f***ing difference between Germans boycotting Scientology stars
and Scientologists boycotting "suppressive" films (as you could read
recently in one of the TNX postings)?
Boycott is the legitimate weapon of the man on the street. I don't
want a Scientologist reading my mail or teaching my children.
--Cornelius.
--
/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: pha...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP3 */
/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */
Steve A
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 03:09:52 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
> No it's not, but what is the use to explain the whole thing again? You
> didn't get it and you probably won't, or you are deliberately twisting
> things around, or both.
>
> Bye.
Nice bit of non-confront, Bernie - how about some answers to the
points Tilman is making.
What's that? You haven't GOT any answers? OK, maybe "Bye" was the best
response, then.
--
Steve A, SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12
ObDenial: I am not Arthur Stevens of Crawley.
ObURLS: Beginners: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html
In-depth: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
Harassment: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/harass/timeline-95.html
Fools, losers, and mugs: http://www.scientology.org
Child molesters! Join Scientology and grope with impunity!
IN MEMORIAM: Richard Collins, John Buchanan, Noah Lottick anon.penet.fi,
rema...@utopia.hacktic.nl, victims of the criminal cult of Scientology.
Bernie
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk.no.spam.thanx (Steve A) wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 03:09:52 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>> til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>> No it's not, but what is the use to explain the whole thing again? You
>> didn't get it and you probably won't, or you are deliberately twisting
>> things around, or both.
>> Bye.
>Nice bit of non-confront, Bernie - how about some answers to the
>points Tilman is making.
And how about ~the~ point ~I~ was making and which Tilman
repeatedly kept missing and deforming as above?
>What's that? You haven't GOT any answers? OK, maybe "Bye" was the best
>response, then.
Anyway, I don't expect you to get it either.
---------
Bernie
Your Amends formula: Spot a clue. Continue until cognition.
(Scott McClare)
Ralph Hilton
On Sun, 03 Nov 1996 05:00:29 GMT, My local DSA reported to me that
te...@skylink.net (Ted Mayett (OT 1.1)) wrote:
>On 31 Oct 1996 08:56:31 GMT, "Jim Kalergis"
><JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, I use it "against" my children all the time. Like when my older
>>daughter's cat died and she was grief stricken. I gave her 2 hours of
>>auditing and she bounced back fine.
>
>I want to comment on this since my attitudes have changed over the
>month's. I no longer want to see the cult destroyed, merely
>corrected. That it will probably shut down rather than change just
>proves that we don't always get what we want.
>
>My question on this is that 2 hours seems a long time.
>I've done 11 book one sessions. 9 of them successful. It has never
>taken 2 hours to run the grief of a loss out. At least not for me.
>
>What kind of auditing was used is what I wonder.
>
A chain of engrams run back with Routine 3R could well go this long
but it wouldn't be usual. Someone can get into running a chain of
losses going back through many lifetimes. I would expect a session
that long to produce quite a improvement in the person's ability to
experience emotion.
--
Ralph Hilton
Eric Rose
Hi,
I found the following (which appears relevant) in one of Tilman's old
posts...
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk.no.spam.thanx (Steve A) wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:56:02 -0700, nob...@huge.cajones.com (Huge
>Cajones Remailer) wrote:
>
>> - The Kath's, a German family who got into Scientology in 1992, had
>> their 3 year old son ostracized from kindergarten after the head of =
the
>> kindergarten told other children not to play with him because he was a
>> Scientologist. =20
>
>I seem to recall that this was an unfounded allegation that was later
>proved to be false. Perhaps one of the German posters can clarify?
August 1995: MP Renate Rennebach investigates scientology's allegation
that two children were expelled out of a kindergarden. She finds out
that of the two children, one *is* attending classes there, and the
other was never *expelled*: instead, the protestant church community
who runs the private kindergarden refused the application because of
fear of the parents scientology proselytising. The child is attending
classes in a public kindergarden.
On 4.9.1995, parents boycott a school class because a teacher had
proselytised scientology in school. The parents even take the
education of their children in their own hands, teaching their
children themselves. The teacher, who previously already had been
reassigned five times after parent protests, is later removed from the
school.
Eric
-----
ER...@nnpbnasc.ms-mail.telecom.com.au | Help stop Mad Car disease
PGP fingerprint & keyID: |
0xEDDA179D: 3F AC F9 74 3C B3 35 E5 |
F8 D2 15 A9 75 34 C0 AF |
Ted Mayett (KoX)
>On Sun, 03 Nov 1996 05:00:29 GMT, My local DSA reported to me that
>te...@skylink.net (Ted Mayett (OT 1.1)) wrote:
>
>>On 31 Oct 1996 08:56:31 GMT, "Jim Kalergis"
>><JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, I use it "against" my children all the time. Like when my older
>>>daughter's cat died and she was grief stricken. I gave her 2 hours of
>>>auditing and she bounced back fine.
>>
>>My question on this is that 2 hours seems a long time.
>>I've done 11 book one sessions. 9 of them successful. It has never
>>taken 2 hours to run the grief of a loss out. At least not for me.
>>
>>What kind of auditing was used is what I wonder.
>>
>A chain of engrams run back with Routine 3R could well go this long
>but it wouldn't be usual. Someone can get into running a chain of
>losses going back through many lifetimes. I would expect a session
>that long to produce quite a improvement in the person's ability to
>experience emotion.
>
"Grief stricken" Does not sound like an inability to experience
emotion. The picture I had from Jim's write up was of a kid terribly
sad over the loss of a cat. And that the thing that was run was the
loss of 'the' cat.
This as compared to a ceremonial auditing session in which whatever is
done and links are addressed.
I ran a kid on a cat thing once, book one. It didn't take two hours.
All I did was have him sit in a chair, about 30 minutes and he was out
the door playing and happy.
So I was wondering what it was that Jim had done.
---
Ted Mayett te...@skylink.net
This link is a good starting point:
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~marina/misc/arshtml.htm
Next Picket Dec 7-8 1996, for information:
http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/demo.htm
Ralph Hilton
You can get a key-out quite quickly. If you go for a full erasure
which resolves it so it doesn't key-in again then that takes longer.
--
Ralph Hilton
Steve A
On 31 Oct 1996 18:55:50 GMT, "Jim Kalergis"
<JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> I received email which prompts me to post a disclaimer to the above
> referenced
> article.
>
> Not by any stretch of the imagination did I mean to imply that what I wrote
>
> about Tilman applies universally to ARS critics.
Post all the disclaimers you like: your attack on Tilman damns you
more than enough.
Steve A
On 31 Oct 1996 08:56:31 GMT, "Jim Kalergis"
<JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >>If these "hundred and thousands" people use scientology to "care" (or
> > >>rather, "handle" since "care", "love", etc., is just a product of the
> > >>reactive mind)
> >
> > It is a logical assumption based on the concept that the reactive mind
> > is the one that does the "spontaneous", "emotional", "silly" stuff, etc.
> > You won't find "love" or "care" on the tone scale. True scientologists
> > don't love, they "communicate", they "handle", they "postulate", etc.
>
> I am a true Scientologist and I love my children more than anything
> else on God's green earth.
Tell me something. How would you feel about someone else "loving" your
children, if you catch my drift?
Now, if that someone else happened to be a member of an organisation
to which you, too, belonged, and if you discovered what he was up to
with your children and wanted to report it to the police, but your
organisation told you that if you did, you'd be thrown out, how would
you react then?
If you want specifics, go to DejaNews and search on
>
> You don't know me, Tilman. You don't know my family, my friends, or their
> children. I imagine it's safe to say that you've never had any personal
> contact
> with a Scientology family.
>
> And yet you have the fucking nerve to sit behind your keyboard in full
> dramatizing nazi mode and post crap like this?
Might I also observe at this point that you have as much right to
start accusing Tilman of being a nazi as you claim he has to criticise
your so-called religion?
> > I do consider scientologists to be human
> > but I do not consider "true"
> > scientologists to be able to care for their children, and luckily the
> > german adoption agencies see this so too.
> >
> > >>Luckily some scientologists are smart enough not to use it
> > >>against their children.
>
> Yeah, I use it "against" my children all the time. Like when my older
> daughter's cat died and she was grief stricken. I gave her 2 hours of
> auditing and she bounced back fine. Or the time my younger girl
> was having trouble in school and it wasn't sorting out. I applied
> some Hubbard data eval tech "against" her and she was flying again
> in no time.
Which is precisely what Tilman (and I, and many others, no doubt) is
having a problem about: you seek to replace normal nurturing parental
acts with the skewed and warped ramblings of a psychotic like Hubbard.
> > No it ain't when it's scientology. And german, english and american
> > courts see this like me. Scientology cannot be compared to Christian,
> > Muslim or Buddhist religions.
>
> Say the word and I will post to this newsgroup several million bits
> worth of court documents which say otherwise.
They might be worth several million bits, but that's about the top and
bottom of it.
We KNOW how anxious Scientology is to demoonstrate its religious bona-
fides in terms of court decisions. Then they trot out decisions by
outfits like the IRS, a government organisation in a country whose
Constitution specifically prohibits government interference with
religion, in support of their claim.
What they conspicuously fail to do is to demonstrate the reality of
any ACTS which might render them capable of being considered a
religion.
> Even if Scientology really were the evil cult you and other ARS critics
> like to think it is, you and your kind would still pose a far greater
> threat
> to the world and those around you than any cult ever could.
"you and your kind" referring, presumably, to your claim that Tilman
is a Nazi?
What I cannot understand is how the cult can so glibly accuse everyone
of German heritage of being a Nazi, while simultaneously comparing
themselves with German Jews who must also presumably be Nazis by the
same token. Weird.
> Your dramatization is so intense that you are forced to spend every
> waking moment making it somehow all make sense, lest you lose
> your sanity completely.
Ah, this is the bit where the OT8 reads your mind shortly before he
fries you like a bug, Tilman.
>To this end you collect all manner of "proof"
> as to the evil nature of your targets and intended victims. You then cling
> to that "proof" of evil in others like it is the very word of God, rather
> than
> confront the warped and evil sickness of your own soul.
Wipe the spittle off your keyboard, there's a good chap.
Gee, is this what $360,000 gets you? Scary.
Steve A
On 31 Oct 1996 22:44:04 GMT, "Jim Kalergis"
<JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Hi Barbara,
>
> After looking up Tilman via Deja News and reading enough of his stuff to
> become truly nauseated, I am of the opinion that the "nazi" reference
> is entirely appropriate in Tilman's case. If it walks like a duck and
> quacks like
> a duck, why not call it a duck?
You'll presumably be quite happy for us to continue to damn you by
association with the criminal cult of Scientology, too, then?
Not, after your little outburst, that YOU are likely to be damned by
association with something else: no, now the reverse - that IT is
damned by association with YOU - is more likely to apply.
Oh, and BTW don't plan any bug-frying escapades in Germany for a
while: what you did in that post was, IIRC, a criminal offence in
Germany. You might even end up sharing a cell with Gary Lauck, another
troublemaking supporter of totalitarian enterprises.
> You of course are free to take me seriously or not as you see fit.
I think "or not" is likely to be the operative part of this sentence.
Steve A
On Sat, 02 Nov 1996 15:57:37 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
> til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>
> >In <01bbc6e4$59e14800$d524eea5@jimkaler>, "Jim Kalergis"
> ><JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >>Hi Barbara,
>
> >>After looking up Tilman via Deja News and reading enough of his stuff to
> >>become truly nauseated, I am of the opinion that the "nazi" reference
> >>is entirely appropriate in Tilman's case. If it walks like a duck and
>
> >Any examples to back up your allegation? Or are you an "anti-social
> >person", so you have to speak in generalities?
>
> I don't support the "Nazi" allegation, but the "Re: Hollywood
> stars attack German's scientology policy" thread Jim referred to
> initially is a good example on how far you are willing to go in
> your fight against "evil", Tilman. I think that anyone with some
> remains of humanity will understand Jim's reaction.
How far is that, Bernie? Let's see some specific claims.
Bernie
kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:
>Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:
>> I don't support the "Nazi" allegation, but the "Re: Hollywood
>> stars attack German's scientology policy" thread Jim referred to
>> initially is a good example on how far you are willing to go in
>> your fight against "evil", Tilman.
>What's the f***ing difference between Germans boycotting Scientology stars
>and Scientologists boycotting "suppressive" films (as you could read
>recently in one of the TNX postings)?
None, they both have the right to do so. Individual, you, me,
anyone has the right to boycott whatever he likes. But the
State, or a State agency, or a body representing the State or
represented in the State, has no right to take position in these
matters. That's the difference.
But, if you read through, you will see that Jim didn't react to
that. He reacted to Tilman's support of the assertion that
Scientologists are not able to love and care for their own
children. There may be instances when Scientologist parents may
do some harm through a bigoted application of the tek to their
child, like a bigot Christian may do by over culpabilizing his
child for sex, for example, but this doesn't remove their human
ability to love and care for their own children. To say
otherwise is such a des-humanized and discriminative statement
that I have no problem in understanding Jim's reaction.
---------
Bernie
Only economic considerations are to be taken into account when
deciding who can enter into a public contract with the
government. It can not be used as a means to dispense sanctions
or as a control mechanism in pursuit of socio-political aims.
(Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung)
Cornelius Krasel
Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:
> kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:
>
> >Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:
> >> I don't support the "Nazi" allegation, but the "Re: Hollywood
> >> stars attack German's scientology policy" thread Jim referred to
> >> initially is a good example on how far you are willing to go in
> >> your fight against "evil", Tilman.
>
> >What's the f***ing difference between Germans boycotting Scientology stars
> >and Scientologists boycotting "suppressive" films (as you could read
> >recently in one of the TNX postings)?
>
> None, they both have the right to do so. Individual, you, me,
> anyone has the right to boycott whatever he likes. But the
> State, or a State agency, or a body representing the State or
> represented in the State, has no right to take position in these
> matters. That's the difference.
The Junge Union doesn't represent the State in any matter (fortunately).
According to the German Basic Law (constitution) political parties are
organizations which are independent from the state. Therefore, the
Junge Union has every right to call for a boycott of Scientology films
(although I don't support such a boycott).
> But, if you read through, you will see that Jim didn't react to
> that. He reacted to Tilman's support of the assertion that
> Scientologists are not able to love and care for their own
> children.
In essence, Tilman said the following:
]I do consider scientologists to be human, but I do not consider "true"
]scientologists to be able to care for their children, and luckily the
]german adoption agencies see this so too.
Let me first illustrate this by a few selected quotes:
---snip---begin quotes
AFFIDAVIT
YOLANDA HOWELL
[address]
August 30, 1989
Dear Margery,
I read of your plight in the Free Spirit. I, too have a Scientology
horror story to relate. I, also, would seek some sort of recompense
(if it were possible to replace the lost lives, dreams, relationships,
income potential, etc.) but have not known where to turn as I was told
my "statute of limitations" was up. I was in such a state of shock I
couldn't even talk about it for the period of the statute of
limitations!
In a nutshell, as I believe you need these statements to be brief, I
will relate my tale as follows:
1. In May of 1973, at 21 years of age, I joined the Church of
Scientology, Mission of Salt Lake City, Utah.
2. In November 1973, after unsatisfactory (and very strange)
"marriage counseling," I divorced my husband of five years. I had
three children, aged 4, 2, and 9 months. We sold our two-year-old
house and all of our possessions and my ex took all of the money so he
could get "audited."
3. In June of 1974 I was convinced to join the Sea Organization at
AOLA, in Los Angeles, where I would be "trained as an auditor in the
most ethical organization on earth, receive at least $5 an hour (good
wages back then!) after I was trained, receive a very nice apartment
for myself and my children to live in, and be supplied with clothing
and food for myself and my children. My children would attend school
in "a very upstat nursery." I quit a college accounting program I was
on to pursue this situation that seemed designed for a single mother.
4. After one night in a one-room "apartment," my children were taken
away from me and put in the Cadet Org which, at that time, was a
filthy, poorly managed, nursery for Sea Org Members' children. I was
escorted to the Excalibur where I received my Product 0 training. I
returned two weeks later to find all of my personal belongings had
been rifled, things stolen, and I was to sleep on a couch without
blankets in a foyer of the staff house.
5. In addition to my own schedule of 22 hours a night (we had
"all-hands" every night) it became apparent that my children were not
being fed, occasionally, at the Cadet Org. I approached the HAS to
see about my getting on Welfare to ensure my children got fed, and I
was reprimanded. I became so totally exhausted physically and
mentally, that I hallucinated (I have never done any hallucinogenic
drugs -- I smoked marijuana a little in 1972). I felt my mental
health suffered greatly during this time.
6. My parents came to visit, saw the conditions, and talked me into
leaving the Sea Org, which I did during a rare weekend off that I had
been given to prove to my parents how "normal" everything was in the
Sea Org. We got to my Uncle's in Nevada and I panicked: I thought
that if I blew and got declared "SP" I would die as a being and be
unable to care for my children. I told my parents to take my children
back to Salt Lake City, and I would return to AOLA and properly route
out. I told them I thought this probably took about three days.
7. For several days I attempted to see the MAA or HAS to route out,
and was put off. I finally got to see the HAS and, essentially, he
put me off and sent me back to post. I thought he was "working" on
it. This went on for three weeks. I was in a terrible condition of
grief from missing my children, confusion at the things I was exposed
to in the organization, and despair at ever being allowed to "properly
route out." I was terrified of the MAA (Margaret George). She
screamed almost incessantly, calling people "SP's", and soon I didn't
know how so many good Scientologists could also be considered "SP." I
finally got to see her and she yelled at me; she told me I had finally
gotten what I wanted. I asked what she meant and she said that I had
never wanted my children anyway.
8. Meantime, my ex-husband called (we had been on very good terms
when I left for the Sea Org. I have known him since I was 12 years
old and he had never deceived me before) and told me that my parents
had told him that they had to get back to work and could not watch my
children anymore. He offered to watch the children until I got back.
(Eleven years later, when I could finally talk about the occurrences,
my parents informed me that this was not true: they had hired a
permanent baby-sitter for my children during the day while they
worked. They said that my ex-husband had called them and said that I
had told him he could have the kids! They had repeatedly been unable
to contact me by phone, and I was disallowed from private
conversations with them except for one time).
9. After six weeks I was taken into "session," caused to rockslam,
and told I was being routed out for evil intentions. I flew back to
Salt Lake City with a ticket my mother had left at the airport for me.
10. When I returned to Salt Lake City, I immediately called my
ex-husband to let him know I was back. He seemed very cool and aloof
on the phone. I went to the mission thinking- my ex-husband had the
children there, or something. I had no idea anything was amiss. I
was physically grabbed and forced by the Ethics Officer, the minute I
walked through the door, into an inner office, where the Deputy
Executive Director (David West) acted as a "mediator" while my
ex-husband threatened me physically with a raised chair to "cave my
head in." I was still physically and mentally exhausted, and this
next situation threw me into total shock. As I said, my ex-husband
and I had been on good terms, and suddenly was threatening to kill me
in front of witnesses! I asked him what was wrong and he said that he
didn't want me back in town because he was getting married and he was
afraid that he still loved me. Attempting to appease him, I
congratulated him and reassured him: I had only come to get my
children.
11. He then informed me that I could not have them back (I had legal
custody). I was numb and could barely argue. I couldn't believe this
was happening. I was told by Dave West that I have been so
third-parried while I was gone that he didn't want any Scientologist
talking to me. In fact, he didn't even want me on the same street as
Scientologists (SLC is not a very large town, and I lived a short
distance from the mission. One day I was spotted drinking an orange
soda at Dee's restaurant and I received a vicious call from Dave West
telling me not to be on 2nd South -- a main street in Salt Lake City!)
12. I pleaded with Dave and my ex to let me at least see my children.
Dave West and my ex-husband then told me to come up with $1,500 for
auditing and then I could see my kids. (Just this year my youngest
daughter told me that her father once told her that he once had been
very much in love with me, but that was before Dave West, his auditor,
set him "straight" on me! Apparently the whole incident was designed
and guided by Dave West, the Deputy Director! As my ex-husband was
being trained to be the registrar, I suppose he saw it as a good way
to start his career.)
13. I was instructed not to tell anyone of what they had said, or I
would be declared an SP and would not ever get to see my children!
14. To get the money, I badgered family members, causing my once
close family to separate from me, and begged in Sugarhouse Park from
total strangers for, not a few dollars, but the full amount! Finally,
my mother loaned it to me, although she still did not understand what
was going on. I was then allowed to see my children, once. I was not
allowed back at the mission, however, because, after they had my
money, I was told I needed $1,600 more to pay off my Sea Org
freeloader debt!!!!
I talked about this only in session for years, and never was any
ethics action called by an auditor on David West or my ex. The entire
topic was never actually directly addressed in session! In spite of
the fact that I did every ethics condition assigned to me to try to
get my kids back and suffered every demeaning blow to my ego they
hurled, underwent auditing for 10 years to find out what I did to
"pull this in," I was never allowed to get my kids back, or even to
talk about it.
I later found out from Phil Parks of the Salt Lake Missions that David
West had told everyone I had blown the Sea Org (and thus was declared
an SP so they weren't to talk to me). Phil Parks, and the others, to
this day still believe the slander that was spread by my ex and Dave
West. For up to seven years I ran into people I didn't even know in
Scientology who had "heard" about me. When I asked them what they had
heard, invariably they couldn't remember, but it was "bad," or heard I
abandoned my children and was starving them to death and my ex-husband
had to go get them from me, etc., etc. Four of these people were Sue
Cooper-Kimball Piper, Dee Barber, Gina Godwin, and Annie McGregor. I
was so slandered and so affected by the loss of my children that my
income-producing potential suffered (it is very hard to explain to
non-Scientologists, especially in Utah where a lot of value is placed
on the family, that your children do not live with you. I was deeply
ashamed of this, but could not tell anyone what had happened. The
question about children invariably came up in job interviews and I am
certain that both my emotional responses to this area of questioning
and my debilitated operational level because of this situation
decreased certain chances for advancement. I felt that I had to try
to make Scientology look good, no matter what. I had to be an
excellent Scientologist, or I never would get my kids back!)
The slander was so complete and I was so devastated, that I have never
recovered. My son, my baby, is dead now, hit by a car at five years
of age while crossing a busy street "protected by postulates." My son
never knew I was his mother. He just thought I was some strange lady
that came to visit that everybody called "Mom."
When I was in high school, I was in the upper 3% in the nation for SAT
scores. My IQ has always tested high -- 122 to 144. I had a lot of
potential and willingness. Unfortunately, I also had an equal measure
of naivety. Scientology took advantage of my better nature, convinced
me I was a totally worthless person, and destroyed my family life.
There is more to this story, but, after 15 years I still can hardly
stand to recall it, in spite of my being "OT."
David West was, as last I knew, the Senior CS for NOTs, AOLA.
I wish you the best, Margery Wakefield.
---snip---
To the inFormer:
The ill-effects of scientology on my family were
devastating and permanent. When we joined scientology we
were generally a loving and happy family. We had just built an
upscale house in the suburbs with all the amenities. My
husband and I sought to provide our family with the stability
and caring that they required. I was only 21, and had three
children, ages four months, one year and three years.
Within one year after joining scientology we were
divorced and had moved the children four times. My children
and I were living in squalor in the Sea Org.
I joined scientology staff at the local mission. This
quickly drove my husband crazy. He came to the mission to
kill everyone and threatened to blow his head off with a
shotgun. I acquired sole legal custody after the incident.
Someone at the mission "handled" him and he went on staff,
too. He could not pay child support.
I joined the Sea Org after being told by a Flag recruiter
that we would be given a "lovely" apartment. My children, over
my protests, were taken from me and sent to live at the Cadet
Org several blocks away. I was given training which I later had
to pay back as a freeloader's debt. The promises of a
wonderful environment -- the most ethical on the planet --
were lies. The slum in my home city did not even approximate
the vile conditions to which we were subjected in scientology.
My children were kept filthy -- their toys and clothing were
distributed throughout the Cadet Org. No one owned anything.
My husband spread the rumor that I was starving my
children when the Cadet Org did not feed them properly.
When I protested the conditions of the Cadet Org and said I
needed to route out of the Sea Org to support them or get
some welfare, I was told it was unethical to use welfare and I
could not route out. I sent my children to live with my parents
while I attempted to route out of the Sea Org. My husband,
aided by his auditor and girl friend, stole them.
The Acting ED of the mission and my husband (who
worked there) had spread lies about me. So after I routed out,
got back to the mission and attempted to retrieve my children,
no one would speak to me. They gave no thought to the
welfare of my children or the fact that I had legal custody.
"Wog" laws don't matter in scientology. My ex worked on
staff all day and night. So, from a very early age, my oldest
daughter was left to baby sit the younger children, including
neighbors'. He married a woman who believed Hubbard's idea
that it was better if the real parents did not raise their own kids
-- mutual engrams, you know. So, they proceeded to neglect
my children, causing my oldest daughter to become unstable
and criminal, and my five year old son to get hit -- and killed -
- by a car as he played, unsupervised, in a busy street. They
swore he was "protected by postulates."
I was ostracized by people at the mission and I was not
allowed input regarding my children's upbringing. But, at least
I could see my children occasionally. I had been forbidden to
criticize their upbringing. I feared loss -- yet again -- of my
children, if I spoke up.
Although I had said I was done with scientology, I was
told I could never see my children again unless I came up with
the money for auditing and my freeloaders debt. I was also
told that I would be declared (Suppressive) if I told anyone
what they had done with my children. The Acting ED said that
he intended to lie and say I had blown the Sea Org so no one
would listen to me, anyway. They paid no attention to the
harm they were doing to my children by abruptly depriving
them of their mother. I had been their major supporting parent
since their births.
When my daughter was five, she put razor blades in her
step mother's purse to "get even." My son clung to anyone
with long dark hair (like mine) and my second daughter was
also hit by a car. She was not killed. Her eye, however, was
permanently damaged when she was two. Another scientology
child of eight was left to baby sit her and five other children.
The scientologist whose house they were using was a
beautician and had left her supplies lying about. My daughter
had rubbed hair dye into her eye.
I baby sat other staff members' children and really
loved them. One thing was common in all families (most had
one or more divorces): the children were all deprived of a
normal, secure upbringing. In the Sea Org, many exec families
had me baby sit during my "enhancement time" because the
conditions in the Cadet Org were so bad. Later they all were
ordered to send their children to the Cadet Org, anyway.
Several children got in legal trouble for roaming the streets of
Los Angeles, unsupervised. Their parents got in trouble for not
handling their kids, in spite of the fact that they were given no
time to do so. Sea Org activities demanded the children and
parents were deprived of each others' company. The children
were deprived of adequate love and guidance. Instead they
were given Hubbard's trite phrases with which to guide their
lives. They were never taught to think or reason beyond using
a "Hubbardism."
One little baby I knew in the Sea Org got herpes during
a Cadet Org epidemic. A 14 year old girl disclosed to me how
she and a few other little girls were leaving the Cadet Org in
the daytime and performing sexual services for one of the girl's
uncles in exchange for money. A man who worked in the
Cadet Org admitted he was sexually molesting the children.
Although these incidents were written up, as far as I know they
were never "handled."
I saw one staff member's child, who had been declared
a Suppressive Person at age 12, turned out onto the street
with no means of support. When he tried to sneak into the
galley line to get some food, he was physically jumped by two
adults who forced him outside again.
One woman's baby became very ill -- thin and colicky --
after using the Hubbard's "baby formula." We were not
allowed to say it was bad, however. How I respected her for
saying that it was hurting her baby and she was going to give
him formula! He then recovered fully.
Another family always delivered their children at home
and never reported the births. If their children ever want to
join society, there will be no record of them. I knew of
another baby who died during a home birth with the cord
wrapped around its neck -- a simple procedure with adequate
hospital care. But scientologists don't believe in that sort of
thing.
My children, those who managed to survive a
scientology upbringing, are ill adjusted and have all sorts of
social problems. My middle daughter, who rejected
scientology as the thing that "broke up her family," has
managed to graduate from college through hard work and
scholarships. Her family made a lot of money, but it was
dedicated to the "bridge." She does not really want a career,
however. She says all she wants is a stable family where she
can share love -- something she never had growing up.
The atrocities that have been committed against children
by individuals using scientology "technology" are reprehensible
enough to provide cause to place the cult in government
receivership. But if government agencies cannot or will not do
anything, then we must. We must speak out via pamphlets,
books, films, videos, interviews and any other media. Only by
joining together and speaking out publicly can we protect other
children from the horrors to which our own were subjected.
Yolanda Howell
---snip---
[From "Road to Xenu", chapter 8:]
I followed her directions as I walked the twenty or so blocks to a small
windowless building on Franklin Street. So this is where they keep the
children, I thought to myself, suddenly realizing that I had seen no young
children in the weeks I had been in Scientology, even though I knew many of
the staff were married. As I passed the fenced back yard, I saw a dozen
toddlers wandering around in the dirt, clothed only in diapers. There was no
grass in the yard, just several large trees surrounded by dirt. The children
had no toys, and were playing with each other or using their hands to draw
pictures in the dirt.
I went to the door on the far side of the building on which was a small
blue and white sign printed "Cadet Org, Church of Scientology."
I was let in the building, and as I looked around I was greeted by a dismal
sight. The walls of the rooms and the hallway surrounding me were painted
stark white. The floors were a dull grey and dirty linoleum. There were no
pictures on the walls, no decorations of any kind. Wandering in the hallways
and in the two rooms I could see several dozen children dressed only in
diapers and t-shirts. Most looked as if they had not been bathed recently.
Several carried bottles, but most were just wandering in the hallway or
sleeping on the bare floor. The rooms were bare of furniture and there were
no toys, books, or any of the normal and familiar signs of childhood. I could
smell urine in the room, and I heard many small voices crying plaintively. A
young girl in a Sea Org uniform came up to me and greeted me. She was one of
two staff members in charge of all these children.
"Where do you keep their toys and books?" I asked the young girl, whose
name was Colleen.
"They don't have any," she answered in an expressionless voice. "Children
are down statistics, and you don't reward down statistics. That's in the
tech."
"But what do they do all day?" I asked her noticing that many of
the children had a forlorn look about them. I had a sudden instinct
to grab as many children as I could and run out the door.
"We just watch them. They play in the back yard. If their parents' stats
(statistics) are up, they can come and see their children for a hour or so
after dinner."
"Do they sleep here?" I asked her.
"Yes, most of them do." She showed me a room further down the hallway. In
the room were rows of cribs, side by side, about a dozen in all in the small
room. "Some of the Sea Org children stay here, and some are sent to a ranch
in Mexico if their parents are going to be on a mission for a long time," she
explained.
"But don't the parents miss their children?" I asked.
"Remember," she told me severely, "children are part of the second dynamic.
The third dynamic (the group) is more important than the second dynamic. The
rule in Scientology is `the greatest good for the greatest number of
dynamics.' Our main purpose in Scientology is to clear the planet. Don't
ever forget that. Until the children can begin to work for the group, they
are downstats, and they can't be rewarded. Besides, Hubbard says that
children are just thetans in small bodies. They are just as responsible as
adults. We have to get their ethics in. So we don't reward them until they
can produce."
[and so on]
---snip---
[From one of Ariane Jackson's recent postings:]
Albert and I moved to Clearwater to be able to intensively work at
receiving the auditing, to be free of distractions, to be able to follow
the directions of the staff at Flag and be available on a full-time basis
TO ENSURE THAT WE DID ALL WE COULD TO ACHIEVE THE RESULTS. I went all the
way to OT8 costing around $470,000, I did L Rundowns, I did almost 2 years
of training as an auditor, I audited myself for 1,000 hours on OT7, I gave
up the care of my children so I could be more dedicated to Scientology and
more. Albert did all the way to OT7, L's, gave millions, gave donations,
gave unsecured loans never repaid, and ultimately gave everything he had
including his life.
---snip---
[From Cyril Vosper, "The Mind Benders"]
I didn't give a damn for Scientology or all its sweet little
Ethics systems. If I had told any of those crazy Scientolo-
gists what they could do with their Condition of Liability,
I'd have been declared an even lower condition - Enemy, a
Suppressive person; then I would have had to discon-
nect from my children. I had been declared an S.P. in April
1968 and had not seen my children for a week. I couldn't
stand the thought of going through all that again. Mind-
bending self-recrimination, degradation. No. I would go
ahead and act out my part and hope to get out of Scien-
tology painlessly.
---snip---end quotes -- I can easily supply you with more
As one can easily learn if reading Hubbard's scriptures, child support is
only the "second dynamics" (the same as sex) and therefore is much less
important than the higher dynamics (there are eight). Therefore, one
rightfully can conclude that a Scientologist who really cares for his
religion cannot be very supportive of children.
Hubbard writes the following about the second dynamic:
---snip---start hcopl
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 11 AUGUST 1967
Remimeo
BPI
SECOND DYNAMIC RULES
It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or attempt to regulate
the private lives of individuals. Whenever this has occurred it has not
resulted in any improved condition. All I have been interested in, so for
as Scientology law was concerned, was in removing retarding elements or
practices from the path of progress toward freedom. Man is aberrated.
Otherwise we would not be here. He is hard to rescue as he has been
carefully "trained" to do himself harm. I have no concern about the second
dynamic activities of Scientologists save only where they bring suffering
to others and so impede our forward progress. Therefore ALL FORMER RULES,
REGULATIONS AND POLICIES RELATING TO THE SECOND DYNAMIC ACTIVITIES OF
STUDENTS, PRECLEARS, STAFF AND SCIENTOLOGISTS ARE CANCELLED. In their
place, any husband, wife or individual whose processing or training has
been impeded or interrupted beyond any reasonable doubt by second dynamic
activities on the part of staff or associates or their husband or wife may
have recourse to the CHAPLAIN'S COURT, Division 6, of any Scientology
organization, and any case heard, if it be proven beyond reasonable doubt
that, without provocation, a person's training or processing has been
impeded by the irregular second dynamic actions of the defendant, a fine of
not less than 1000 sterling or greater than 5000 sterling shall be
awarded the plaintiff and until paid, the defendant shall have no further
training or processing. This policy is non retroactive (occurrences before
this date may not be tried). No Ethics order shall be issued by reason of
second dynamic activities. All Ethics orders now in force relating to the
second dynamic are cancelled. No staff member may be punished, transferred
or dismissed because of second dynamic activities. No student or preclear
may be suspended or dismissed because of second dynamic activities. Nothing
in this policy letter lays aside our actual knowledge of the consequences
of second dynamic overts against husbands and wives being processed or the
degree to which training or processing can be impeded for someone because
of another's acts. We are also aware that those org staffs which are over
active on the second dynamic seldom prosper.
We also retain any and all technology relating to the second dynamic.
One of Man's primary areas of aberration is the second dynamic.
Processing, not discipline, is the only thing which eradicates aberration
of such depth.
LRH:jp,cden
Copyright @ 1967 .
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
L. RON HUBBARD Founder.
---snip---end hcopl
Seems to deal mostly with sex (a subject that Hubbard was abhorrent of)
but I think it's not unreasonable that it is also valid for the rest
of the second dynamic. Well, it's described as "one of Man's primary
areas of aberration".
Whether this is true for any Scientologist may be a different matter.
However, it *must* be true for any "real" Scientologist, just as
Tilman states. As soon as a Scientologist states that he loves his
children, he is not completely brainwashed by his organization.
However, he is also not aware of the appropriate policy letters.
Moreover, Scientology might use his children against him such as in
the Cyril Vosper example above.
Ted Mayett (KoX)
On Tue, 05 Nov 1996 00:17:06 GMT, ra...@xenologics.idiscover.co.uk
(Ralph Hilton) wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Nov 1996 11:34:51 GMT, My local DSA reported to me that
>te...@skylink.net (Ted Mayett (KoX)) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Nov 1996 21:35:40 GMT, ra...@xenologics.idiscover.co.uk
>>(Ralph Hilton) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Nov 1996 05:00:29 GMT, My local DSA reported to me that
>>>te...@skylink.net (Ted Mayett (OT 1.1)) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 31 Oct 1996 08:56:31 GMT, "Jim Kalergis"
>>>><JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, I use it "against" my children all the time. Like when my older
>>>>>daughter's cat died and she was grief stricken. I gave her 2 hours of
>>>>>auditing and she bounced back fine.
>>>>
>>
>>>>My question on this is that 2 hours seems a long time.
>>>>I've done 11 book one sessions. 9 of them successful. It has never
>>>>taken 2 hours to run the grief of a loss out. At least not for me.
>>>>
>>>>What kind of auditing was used is what I wonder.
>>>>
>>>A chain of engrams run back with Routine 3R could well go this long
>>>but it wouldn't be usual. Someone can get into running a chain of
>>>losses going back through many lifetimes. I would expect a session
>>>that long to produce quite a improvement in the person's ability to
>>>experience emotion.
>>>
>>
>>"Grief stricken" Does not sound like an inability to experience
>>emotion. The picture I had from Jim's write up was of a kid terribly
>>sad over the loss of a cat. And that the thing that was run was the
>>loss of 'the' cat.
>>This as compared to a ceremonial auditing session in which whatever is
>>done and links are addressed.
>>
>>I ran a kid on a cat thing once, book one. It didn't take two hours.
>>All I did was have him sit in a chair, about 30 minutes and he was out
>>the door playing and happy.
>>
>>So I was wondering what it was that Jim had done.
>>
>You can get a key-out quite quickly. If you go for a full erasure
>which resolves it so it doesn't key-in again then that takes longer.
>
Full erasure takes two hours?
Bernie
kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:
>Whether this is true for any Scientologist may be a different matter.
>However, it *must* be true for any "real" Scientologist, just as
>Tilman states.
And how would you define a "real" Scientologist? How, and who,
will tell who is a real Scientologist and who isn't? Can you, or
not, understand that someone may be offended by the assertion
that because he accepts a general set of belief, he is not able
to love and care for his own children?
---------
Bernie
I think that it's possible that many are here on ARS because of
free speech and civil liberties issues and I am one of them. I
found it out firsthand. Caring about censorship, or not caring
about it too much, are not facts to be disputed. They are value
commitments.
(Judith Bradford)
Ralph Hilton
On Tue, 05 Nov 1996 15:38:04 GMT, My local DSA reported to me that
te...@skylink.net (Ted Mayett (KoX)) wrote:
snipped earlier stuff.
>
>Full erasure takes two hours?
>
It can do if you get a good heavy chain to run. But that is a chain
that will be a major life changer. Most are much quicker.
--
Ralph Hilton
Cornelius Krasel
> will tell who is a real Scientologist and who isn't?
A real Scientologist is somebody who fully adheres to Hubbard's
scriptures. It is clear from those that the second dynamic is
inferior to higher dynamics, and, as quoted by me, they even state
that the second dynamic is one of Man's greatest aberrations. (I
therefore view this statement as fairly relevant to the belief
system of Scientology.) If people are offended by this I humbly
suggest they choose themselves another religion.
Tilman Hausherr
In <327f5f37...@snews.zippo.com>, te...@skylink.net (Ted Mayett
(KoX)) wrote:
>Full erasure takes two hours?
You're missing the point. I consider it wrong to "audit" people at all.
There is nothing to be proud about "handling" a person who feels sad
because what she loves just died (her cat). My position is that we
should grant people their sadness. It is a part of life, and as long as
it doesn't interfere with normal life, there is no need do anything,
except to "be there", as a dad, as a friend, or whatever.
Bernie
kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:
>Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:
>> kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:
>> >Whether this is true for any Scientologist may be a different matter.
>> >However, it *must* be true for any "real" Scientologist, just as
>> >Tilman states.
>> And how would you define a "real" Scientologist? How, and who,
>> will tell who is a real Scientologist and who isn't?
>A real Scientologist is somebody who fully adheres to Hubbard's
>scriptures.
So how and who will determine how "fully" they adhere? What are
the criteria to determine if they adhere to and how much they
adhere to?
>It is clear from those that the second dynamic is
>inferior to higher dynamics
Absolutely not. Can you quote where it says so? This is
absolutely not a belief that his held by Scientologists.
>and, as quoted by me, they even state
>that the second dynamic is one of Man's greatest aberrations.
They mean to say that sex and emotions are the source of many
trouble. They don't mean to say that sex or emotion is bad as
such. This is not a belief that is held by Scientologists
anymore than anyone else (unless they do believe that sex is
bad, of course, like some Christians). If this is a proof for
you that they are not able to love and care for their own
children, then you are now insulting millions of Christians
around the world (and some Buddhist monks, etc, etc).
>(I
>therefore view this statement as fairly relevant to the belief
>system of Scientology.)
The examples you choose were completely irrelevant and false.
>If people are offended by this I humbly
>suggest they choose themselves another religion.
They cannot choose another religion then being human, Cornelius.
Scientology only comes on top of their humanity. It doesn't make
them less human, even if it can lead them to act in a wrong way.
But then, who is not at risk to do so?
You can expose wrong actions induced by their belief upon
witnessing such, you can point out the danger of this happening.
But you can not presume that someone who is a Scientologist will
automatically bring about wrong doing, and ~even~ if a "true"
Scientologist do so, it is precisely ~because~ he care and love
his child that he will apply to them something that he thinks is
right, even if in reality it is wrong.
Saying that a group of people holding a certain set of belief
are not able to love and care for their own children is wrong,
no matter how you turn it. You have demonstrated one of the
reason why it is wrong. ~Your~ interpretation of ~their~ belief
is not a proof that they are not able to have human emotions
just like anybody, even if your interpretation were right. In
this case, they happened to be completely false. Your are
fearing witches and burning women.
It's like if someone would say to you "you are an atheist, you
do not believe in God, you are instilling these wrong ideas to
your children, you lead them to sin. Therefore, true atheist are
not able to care and love their own children, and we should not
allow them to adopt children". Is this statement true?
---------
Bernie
By freedom I understand social conditions of such a kind that
the expression of opinions and assertions about general and
particular matters of knowledge will not involve dangers or
serious disadvantages for him who expresses them.
(Albert Einstein)
Emerald
Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
> They don't mean to say that sex or emotion is bad as such. This is not
> a belief that is held by Scientologists anymore than anyone else [...]
From HCOB 26-Aug-82, "Pain and Sex", by L. Ron Hubbard:
There are two items in this universe that cause more trouble than
many others combined.
One is PAIN.
The other is SEX.
[...]
Sex is a lock on and perversion of the "joy of creation" which
involves a whole being and expands him, but by using just one wave
length, sex, this can be perverted and he contracts.
[...]
When sex enters the scene a being fixates and loses power.
[...]
Pain and sex were the INVENTED tools of degradation.
[...]
Under the false data of the psychs (who have been on the track a
long time and are the sole cause of decline in this universe) both
pain and sex are gaining ground in this society [...]
[...]
This is not theory or some strange opinion. It is provable
electronic fact.
And so on, ad nauseam.
--
Emerald <eme...@nym.alias.net>
Tilman Hausherr
In <55tg04$h...@animal.intex.net>, kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de
wrote:
>> >It is clear from those that the second dynamic is
>> >inferior to higher dynamics
>>
>> Absolutely not. Can you quote where it says so? This is
>> absolutely not a belief that his held by Scientologists.
>
>It was my impression from reading a few books. However, I have found
>nothing to back it up so I retract this statement.
From the "Road to Xenu":
===
"But don't the parents miss their children?" I asked.
"Remember," she told me severely, "children are part of the second
dynamic. The third dynamic (the group) is more important than the second
dynamic. The rule in Scientology is `the greatest good for the greatest
number of dynamics.' Our main purpose in Scientology is to clear the
planet. Don't ever forget that. Until the children can begin to work
for the group, they are downstats, and they can't be rewarded. Besides,
Hubbard says that children are just thetans in small bodies. They are
just as responsible as adults. We have to get their ethics in. So we
don't reward them until they can produce."
===
While that book is not Elron himself, it is 1st and 2nd hand
experiences.
Bernie
kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de wrote:
>I don't think that Scientologists cannot love their children. However,
>I think that Scientology demands that you should not love your children.
>This is obvious from the testimonies posted earlier in this thread, which
>you ignored completely.
I did, because that was not the question.
>Sorry, being human is not a religion. Most humans care for their
>children, some do not. If you see child care as an ethically
>desirable thing, then your religion should unanimously support it.
>Scientology, IMO, does not. I don't think that you have given any
>data to disprove this.
I am not interested to prove or disprove that. I only objected
to Tilman's discriminative statement, and I tried to point out
that any human being, be it a Scientologist, will normally find
this offensive.
>Instead, you have engaged in squabbling,
>muddling the issues at hand.
If it is my objection against discriminative statement that you
call muddling the issues, then I will gladly muddle the issue
again in future occasions. I believe it is important to make
distinction in our criticism and ask ourself if we didn't cross
the limit at some point.
---------
Bernie
Interestingly enough, the closest thing to Satanic Ritual Abuse
the FBI found was fundies abusing their children in an attempt
to "drive the Devil out"
(John R. Snead)
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
>>It is clear from those that the second dynamic is
>>inferior to higher dynamics
>Absolutely not. Can you quote where it says so? This is
>absolutely not a belief that his held by Scientologists.
"the greatest good for the greatest number of Dynamics."
[snip]
Mike,
http://huizen.dds.nl/~hubbard/
Bernie
Emerald <eme...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
>> They don't mean to say that sex or emotion is bad as such. This is not
>> a belief that is held by Scientologists anymore than anyone else [...]
>From HCOB 26-Aug-82, "Pain and Sex", by L. Ron Hubbard:
Thanks for the references. Some of them do indeed indicate LRH's
view of sex as evil. What I said, however, still holds true.
That sex is evil is not a belief that is held by Scientologists,
at least for their overwhelming majority. I speak from my five
years experiences on staff around the world. I did not witness
~one~ instance of someone holding this belief.
Sex is viewed as part of the second dynamic. It is also often
viewed as a source of aberration, in the sense stated earlier:
that they are often a source of trouble. I remember the mention
that sex is a lower harmony of creation, but I wasn't aware of
the one that it may be a source of evil (not only of trouble),
until your quotes (and I would still need to view them in
context). This says a lot on how much they are probably not
considered very much among Scientologists. By all means, sex
isn't a big central issue in Scientology like it is for
Christians or some Buddhists, that's for sure.
---------
Bernie
It's just as Christian to get down on
your knees for sex as it is for religion.
(Larry Flynt)
Bernie
"Michael 'Mike' Gormez" <hub...@dds.nl> wrote:
>Bernie <be...@arcadis.be > wrote:
>>kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:
>>>It is clear from those that the second dynamic is
>>>inferior to higher dynamics
>>Absolutely not. Can you quote where it says so? This is
>>absolutely not a belief that his held by Scientologists.
> "the greatest good for the greatest number of Dynamics."
How do you infer from that that the second dynamic is inferior
to the higher dynamics?
---------
Bernie
It's the good girls who keep the diaries;
the bad girls never have the time.
(Tallulah Bankhead)
Ralph Hilton
I don't think that the point was missed. Scientologists would agree
that a person's ability to experince appropriate emotion should be
enhanced, not removed.
However, often a person does not let go of a past experience and this
inhibits their ability to experience the present.
So one runs the incidents out, back to basic, thus allowing the person
to experience each incident newly rather than in the unexamined
context of the past.
--
Ralph Hilton
Martin Hunt
In article <328bf216...@192.168.2.1>,
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk.no.spam.thanx (Steve A) wrote:
}On 31 Oct 1996 18:55:50 GMT, "Jim Kalergis"
}<JKal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
}
}>
}> I received email which prompts me to post a disclaimer to the above
}> referenced
}> article.
}>
}> Not by any stretch of the imagination did I mean to imply that what I wrote
}> about Tilman applies universally to ARS critics.
}
}Post all the disclaimers you like: your attack on Tilman damns you
}more than enough.
Yes, and please do imply that I am alike to Tilman; I would
consider it an honour. I've had ample evidence that he is
certainly a better man than I!
Martin Hunt
In article <32826f90...@news.snafu.de>,
}
}"Remember," she told me severely, "children are part of the second
}dynamic. The third dynamic (the group) is more important than the second
}dynamic. The rule in Scientology is `the greatest good for the greatest
}number of dynamics.' Our main purpose in Scientology is to clear the
}planet. Don't ever forget that. Until the children can begin to work
}for the group, they are downstats, and they can't be rewarded. Besides,
}Hubbard says that children are just thetans in small bodies. They are
}just as responsible as adults. We have to get their ethics in. So we
}don't reward them until they can produce."
}
}===
}
}While that book is not Elron himself, it is 1st and 2nd hand
}experiences.
Right; and the 1st is very much supressed (along with the second) in
the cult in favor of the 3rd and 4th, the 3rd being the cult itself,
and the 4th being mankind or the planet which is being "cleared".
There's a heavy emphasis on the group above all and saving the
planet from destruction through aberration, while kids are little
nothings, downstats who don't produce, family time in the SO is
kept to a bare minimum absolutely inhumanely short, marriages
are seen as nothing of consequence, and people are encouraged to
lose themselves (1st dynamic) in the organization.
While Hubbard may have not explicitly stated that the higher
dynamics are more important than the 1st and 2nd, if the 1st was
anything like as important as the 3rd we would see the person
only working 40 hour weeks and getting paid a reasonable wage;
for the 2nd, we would see first rate accomodations and education
for the Sea Org children (instead of maggoty milk and long hours
of work with no education at all).
It is a fair statement that the lower dynamics are suppressed in
the cult in favor of the higher ones, and if Hubbard was the 8th,
he was certainly the focus of the whole cult and treated like
a goddamn emperor.
--
Cogito, ergo sum
Martin Hunt
--
Cogito, ergo sum
Martin Hunt
In article <328269c6...@news.ping.be>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
}Emerald <eme...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
}
}>Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
}
}>> They don't mean to say that sex or emotion is bad as such. This is not
}>> a belief that is held by Scientologists anymore than anyone else [...]
}
}>From HCOB 26-Aug-82, "Pain and Sex", by L. Ron Hubbard:
}
}Thanks for the references. Some of them do indeed indicate LRH's
}view of sex as evil. What I said, however, still holds true.
}That sex is evil is not a belief that is held by Scientologists,
}at least for their overwhelming majority. I speak from my five
}years experiences on staff around the world. I did not witness
}~one~ instance of someone holding this belief.
You must have been in a different cult then, as I witness *hundreds*
of instances of this belief being expressed. One guy even went so
far as to carry around that "Pain and Sex" bulletin on his pink-
sheet clipboard for constant review, and used to show it to me
and wink knowingly. Others simply gave up on sex; dozens of them.
the majority of people in the cult thought that sex was an
aberration; it was what we on the outside might call dirty. Sex
was a product of the reactive mind was the common thread; I
don't believe there's any specific policy which states this so
plainly, but it is one of the things cultists pick up through
osmosis from Ron's rantings. He mentions in one policy that:
"The degree you can be cause in handling the targets and needs of
the group determines right away how far you've come up the line"
[improved]
"Blaming *case* is effect, isn't it?" [case=reactive mind; effect=
being a victim, not being at cause]
"Sex is effect, isn't it?" - HCOPL 13 Sept, 1980 "Spectatorism".
In other words, he likens sex to the reactive mind.
In another policy, Hubbard attributes one of the main causes
of org failure being sex!
Hubbard was sexually aberrated himself, and tended to be sexually
repressive of others, and the cult is now largely anti-sex and
sees it as an aberration. However, this was not always so, and
was not always so in all areas; there's strong evidence that
certain orgs at certain times, particularly the 70s American
orgs in larger urban centers, were overflowing with sexuality,
promiscuity, adultery anf free love.
--
Cogito, ergo sum
Emerald
Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
>Emerald <eme...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>>Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
>>> They don't mean to say that sex or emotion is bad as such. This is not
>>> a belief that is held by Scientologists anymore than anyone else [...]
>>From HCOB 26-Aug-82, "Pain and Sex", by L. Ron Hubbard:
> Thanks for the references. Some of them do indeed indicate LRH's
> view of sex as evil. What I said, however, still holds true.
> That sex is evil is not a belief that is held by Scientologists,
> at least for their overwhelming majority. I speak from my five
> years experiences on staff around the world. I did not witness
> ~one~ instance of someone holding this belief.
That's because they were all out-tech. :)
I left Co$ long before this HCOB was issued, so I didn't witness what
influence, if any, it had on the membership.
Jon Atack, in _A Piece of Blue Sky_, says, "As a result of Hubbard's
diatribe [in the Pain & Sex HCOB], some Scientologists stopped having
sexual intercourse with their spouses."
It seems tragic that anyone would allow their private lives to be
influenced in this way by Hubbard's senile ravings.
--
Emerald <eme...@nym.alias.net>
"Think of it as evolution in action." Jerry Pournelle
Bernie
Emerald <eme...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
>> Thanks for the references. Some of them do indeed indicate LRH's
>> view of sex as evil. What I said, however, still holds true.
>> That sex is evil is not a belief that is held by Scientologists,
>> at least for their overwhelming majority. I speak from my five
>> years experiences on staff around the world. I did not witness
>> ~one~ instance of someone holding this belief.
>That's because they were all out-tech. :)
>I left Co$ long before this HCOB was issued, so I didn't witness what
>influence, if any, it had on the membership.
Actually me too, now that I checked the date of this PL.
>Jon Atack, in _A Piece of Blue Sky_, says, "As a result of Hubbard's
>diatribe [in the Pain & Sex HCOB], some Scientologists stopped having
>sexual intercourse with their spouses."
Yes, that's very well possible.
Another example: I didn't start drinking coffee before the COS.
It is in the Church that I started this habit. Some time later,
while still in the COS, I read or heard something from Mary Sue
Hubbard to the effect that coffee with milk was bad, not
digestible. From that time, I drank my coffee black. I still do,
actually. Maybe it is a remaining COS influence that I should
get rid of :-)
>It seems tragic that anyone would allow their private lives to be
>influenced in this way by Hubbard's senile ravings.
Tragic? How about the Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and
others?
---------
Bernie
There is nothing wrong with sobriety in moderation.
(John Ciardi)
Bernie
uo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>In article <328269c6...@news.ping.be>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>}Thanks for the references. Some of them do indeed indicate LRH's
>}view of sex as evil. What I said, however, still holds true.
>}That sex is evil is not a belief that is held by Scientologists,
>}at least for their overwhelming majority. I speak from my five
>}years experiences on staff around the world. I did not witness
>}~one~ instance of someone holding this belief.
>You must have been in a different cult then, as I witness *hundreds*
>of instances of this belief being expressed.
Seems that I went out of the cult just in time!
[snip]
>However, this was not always so, and
>was not always so in all areas; there's strong evidence that
>certain orgs at certain times, particularly the 70s American
>orgs in larger urban centers, were overflowing with sexuality,
>promiscuity, adultery anf free love.
See. I was in the 70s.
---------
Bernie
Chastity - the most unnatural of the sexual perversions.
(Aldous Huxley)
Bernie
uo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>Family time in the SO is
>kept to a bare minimum absolutely inhumanely short, marriages
>are seen as nothing of consequence, and people are encouraged to
>lose themselves (1st dynamic) in the organization.
That would apply to an Israeli Kibbutz as well. In early times,
the children weren't even (and in many cases still aren't)
living with their own family.
---------
Bernie
There are three ways to get something done: do it yourself, hire
someone, or forbid your kids to do it.
(Monta Crane)
Neal Hamel
>I don't think that the point was missed. Scientologists would agree
>that a person's ability to experince appropriate emotion should be
>enhanced, not removed.
But Ralph, what is the *appropriate* emotion?
Generally scienos feel something is wrong with them if they go "down
tone" because that is "dramatizing" (the bank). So, the *appropriate"
emotion should always be above 2.0.
Do you buy into Hubbard's layout of the tone scale as accurate
science?
>--
>
>Ralph Hilton
-Neal H.
Tilman Hausherr
In <32818cd1...@snews.zippo.com>, te...@skylink.net (Ted Mayett
(KoX)) wrote:
>>You're missing the point. I consider it wrong to "audit" people at all.
>>There is nothing to be proud about "handling" a person who feels sad
>>because what she loves just died (her cat). My position is that we
>>should grant people their sadness. It is a part of life, and as long as
>>it doesn't interfere with normal life, there is no need do anything,
>>except to "be there", as a dad, as a friend, or whatever.
>
>Your wrong on this Tilman. Many people on the NG are.
>
>We read a page of print in a book and the print does not disappear.
>
>When you talk of book one auditing something like the grief and pain
>of the loss of something or someone loved, the memory does not
>disappear.
>
>And I am not arguing for 'basic-basic' or silliness like that. But
>you take a child, as an example, and run a quick book-one session to
>get rid of the grief of a dead cat, in a few weeks you may find the
>child sitting quietly and crying. Crying because they are thinking
>about the cat. But they can at least think about the cat now. They
>can talk about the cat.
Seems to me as if it works - initially. And when the memories come back,
you need more of it. And when it works, it is used to "handle" all sad
thoughts, because they are unwelcome (low on the tone scale). But I
think that these are all part of life. And because you get hooked, you
start to believe the whole scientology concept.
>In time we all learn to handle our grief over losses. Book-one simply
>speeds up time. It does not create super-beings. (well actually a
>little bit) but that would be a different discussion. And if
>dianetics were not tainted by scientology it might be more of a
>household word. Again a different discussion.
Yes I understand that by going over the incidents again and again, your
normal reaction is squeezed in time.
>I was a13 years old when a brother died, I went into deep depression
>that lasted about 4 months. I had snapped out of it about the time I
>was going to be committed.
>
>More than twenty years later a free book-one session was run on it.
>It was like a hundred pounds lifted off the head. Today I still can
>cry over the brother, but more importantly, I can talk about it
>without acting and sounding psychotic. I say real matter of factly -
>oh yeah, I had a brother who died when I was a kid. There was a time
>I couldn't do that. And to be fair, I'm sure that by today I would be
>able to do the same thing without the book-one session. Time heals.
But 1. you had already handled it after the four months 2. you would
have gotten the same effect by talking about it with your loved one.
>loved ones. It makes them easier to remember. It does what Time
>does, just more quickly.
Yes, this could be.
Tilman
Ted Mayett (KoX)
>In <32818cd1...@snews.zippo.com>, te...@skylink.net (Ted Mayett
>(KoX)) wrote:
>
>>>You're missing the point. I consider it wrong to "audit" people at all.
>>>There is nothing to be proud about "handling" a person who feels sad
>>>because what she loves just died (her cat). My position is that we
>>>should grant people their sadness. It is a part of life, and as long as
>>>it doesn't interfere with normal life, there is no need do anything,
>>>except to "be there", as a dad, as a friend, or whatever.
>>
>>Your wrong on this Tilman. Many people on the NG are.
>>
>>We read a page of print in a book and the print does not disappear.
>>
>>When you talk of book one auditing something like the grief and pain
>>of the loss of something or someone loved, the memory does not
>>disappear.
>>
>>And I am not arguing for 'basic-basic' or silliness like that. But
>>you take a child, as an example, and run a quick book-one session to
>>get rid of the grief of a dead cat, in a few weeks you may find the
>>child sitting quietly and crying. Crying because they are thinking
>>about the cat. But they can at least think about the cat now. They
>>can talk about the cat.
>
>Seems to me as if it works - initially. And when the memories come back,
>you need more of it. And when it works, it is used to "handle" all sad
The memories never leave. I'm not talking about the 'engram' part of
the book, but rather about strong grief. You would be quite amazed at
what some of us carry around regarding grief.
>thoughts, because they are unwelcome (low on the tone scale). But I
>think that these are all part of life. And because you get hooked, you
>start to believe the whole scientology concept.
>
Tilman, please, :-)
In 46 years, planet wide, there are probably 100,000 people at the
most who are hooked and believe the whole concept.
My big org has been at the same location for 22??? years now.
I go back 12 years here myself, there are less than 10 of us who do.
>>In time we all learn to handle our grief over losses. Book-one simply
>>speeds up time. It does not create super-beings. (well actually a
>>little bit) but that would be a different discussion. And if
>>dianetics were not tainted by scientology it might be more of a
>>household word. Again a different discussion.
>
>Yes I understand that by going over the incidents again and again, your
>normal reaction is squeezed in time.
>
>>I was a13 years old when a brother died, I went into deep depression
>>that lasted about 4 months. I had snapped out of it about the time I
>>was going to be committed.
>>
>>More than twenty years later a free book-one session was run on it.
>>It was like a hundred pounds lifted off the head. Today I still can
>>cry over the brother, but more importantly, I can talk about it
>>without acting and sounding psychotic. I say real matter of factly -
>>oh yeah, I had a brother who died when I was a kid. There was a time
>>I couldn't do that. And to be fair, I'm sure that by today I would be
>>able to do the same thing without the book-one session. Time heals.
>
>But 1. you had already handled it after the four months 2. you would
>have gotten the same effect by talking about it with your loved one.
>
1. Handled enough to not be committed.
2. Perhaps.
>>loved ones. It makes them easier to remember. It does what Time
>>does, just more quickly.
>
>Yes, this could be.
>
All I say is, I did more than read about it, I took people and threw
them in a chair and said sit still damm it. I can still do it to this
day. But all I'm interested in is running out some grief. Not in
creating supermen or getting basic-basic or Bouncers or Refuser's or
any of that silliness.
In essence you get people to talk. But it is more than that. But it
is something a person can do quickly and with no ceremony.
I do not believe we are arguing here. The tek is like a Girl Scout
Cookie. 99% artificial ingredients, but somewhere in the cookie,
there is something real.
Ralph Hilton
On Sat, 09 Nov 1996 19:31:01 GMT, My local DSA reported to me that
smok...@ix.netcom.com (Neal Hamel) wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Nov 1996 03:30:59 GMT, ra...@xenologics.idiscover.co.uk
>(Ralph Hilton) wrote:
>
>>I don't think that the point was missed. Scientologists would agree
>>that a person's ability to experince appropriate emotion should be
>>enhanced, not removed.
>
>But Ralph, what is the *appropriate* emotion?
The appropriate emotion is the one that a person experiences in
response to their present time environment.
>Generally scienos feel something is wrong with them if they go "down
>tone" because that is "dramatizing" (the bank). So, the *appropriate"
>emotion should always be above 2.0.
They didn't read the materials.
>Do you buy into Hubbard's layout of the tone scale as accurate
>science?
Seems an accurate observation. Science has become a loaded word. I
wouldn't say it was backed up by double blinded morons but it fits
with my perceptions of the way life is.
--
Ralph Hilton