Thursday, 5 May 2011

Still off topic.....but it needs to be said.... Not off topic at all.

Everytime I have watched this video it makes me cry...and today is no exception.

You can laugh at the Julius Ceaser stuff, and, it is funny, but if you are a true believer and some of these people are/were, where do you draw the line between this is for real, oh, no it's not.

How do you come to terms with 'your entire life being a lie?

My life has been a lie, and I was out of the "church of scientology". Could I talk about my life as the child of a scientologist and being a Commadores Messenger? NO! And why was that? Because I was afraid, so very afraid. Just how many people are so very afraid? I know from pickets I have done, there are many. That is just a small proportion of the world, where I have picketed.

You people need to get out there and stand with us, you know who you are and I know too. I will not say, but I urge you to come on out.

I don't ask you to do it for me, I ask you to it for ALL those people whom have spent 10, 20, 30 years stuck inside this insidious doctrination of lies. I know there are many of you 30 + years in this cult and they deserves recognition.Tory and others have been a guiding light and have helped me enormously in coming to terms with the bullshit I was fed as a child.

I cried when I watched this video, because I thought I never thought it was possible, but this was for real. I subsequently made every endeavour to make sure I attended in March 2008, even though I had been working a 12 hour shift through the night.

You have to do what you have to do, and some of you, need to know YOU have to do more.Peoples Human Rights are being trashed in the name of religion, only it is NOT a religion, according to LRH.




The arrangements that have been made seem a good temporary
measure.  On a longer look, however, something more equitable will have
to be organized.  I am not quite sure what we would call the place -
probably not a clinic - but I am sure that it ought to be a company,
independent of the HAS but fed by the HAS.


    This letter to Helen O'Brien is revealing in a number of ways. Written only one year after History of Man (above), this letter introduces a number of new concepts to Dianetics and the fledgling Scientology organization. In the first paragraph, Hubbard clearly states that [Scientology] ought to be a company. In the intervening paragraphs, Hubbard explains more equitable to be higher wages for his auditors as well as more money for the HAS, or Hubbard Association of Scientologists, both of which are clearly business objectives.
We don't want a clinic.  We want one in operation but not in name.
Perhaps we could call it a Spiritual Guidance Center.  Think up its
name, will you.  And we could put in nice desks and our boys in neat
blue with diplomas on the walls and 1.  knock psychotherapy into history
and 2.  make enough money to shine up my operating scope and 3.  keep
the HAS solvent.  It is a problem of practical business.

    Here, Hubbard introduces the concept of religion into Scientology. His prevarication is clear - he wants a clinic in operation, but not in name. Hubbard is deliberately attempting to deceive by calling his business a religion. It is also clear that he is attempting to deceive potential customers by making the Spiritual Guidance Center appear to be the equivalent of a psychiatrist's or doctor's office. The reason for the subterfuge revolves around Hubbard's personal motives - to retaliate for the psychiatry profession's earlier snub of Dianetics, to increase Hubbard's personal power, and to increase the cash flow of the ailing HAS. As Hubbard says, calling Scientology a religion solves a practical business problem.
I await your reaction on the religion angle.  In my opinion, we
couldn't get worse public opinion than we have had or have less
customers with what we've got to sell.  A religious charter would be
necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick.  But I sure could make
it stick.  We're treating the present time beingness, psychotherapy
treats the past and the brain.  And brother, that's religion, not mental

                                     Best Regards,



The primary difference between Dianetics and Scientology is the concept of "Whole Track" auditing (See Metamorphosis to Religion). The "Whole Track" (as opposed to this lifetime's track) has an implicit belief in "Past Lives" (as Scientology calls it) or reincarnation. Scientology explains that they do not believe in reanimation, but rather that the thetan [spirit] has inhabited many, many bodies since the beginning of time.
Scientology teaches that the thetan is quite capable of surviving without a body, and though unusual, can even inhabit "doll" bodies and even share a body with other thetans ["Body Thetans"]. The thetan "picks up a body" when a baby is born, controls the mind and body during its life, then discards the body when it is worn out or of no further use. Then the cycle is repeated with the next body.
The basis of Scientology's belief in reincarnation is due to several factors: 1) Dianetic pre-clears were recalling events during auditing sessions that had not occurred during their lifetime, and 2) Recalling these events appeared to treat the pre-clear's engrams. However, some of these previous-life recollections are clearly fantasy; for example, many Scientologists recall exciting and famous Past Lives when the law of averages suggests that mundane Past Lives should be the norm. Several people claimed to be Joan of Arc in a previous life (though the Auditor's Code strictly forbids pointing out this inconsistency). Hubbard's science-fiction tends to find its way into his followers' recall as well. Auditing involves mental relaxation and can therefore be somewhat hypnotic. False Memory Syndrome is a definite possibility.
The belief in reincarnation is openly presented to new adherents. Scientology (or perhaps just Hubbard) claims ["Lived Before"] that reincarnation was at one time a Christian belief, but was removed from the Bible by a conspiracy of bishops in 553 AD. This claim is apparently common in occult texts and is patently false [Haack] and [Stromsholm].

Refuting Compatability:
In an interview with Lawrence Wollersheim (Factnet director).
Jesse Prince validates the "pedophile"version of OTV111

I've finished reading the transcripts of the Jesse Prince tapes.
There's a lot to digest in there, but I wanted to focus on one single
issue: OT8. Here are excerpts of the transcript in which Jesse
details his claims about OT8.
- ---------

L: Do you know any of the first OTVIII people that did the original OTVIII before they changed it?
J: Not really. I just remember, a man, a European man that was a complete basket case from the ship and I know that a lot of the people, not a lot of the people but it had had many complaints about that and then when they changed it, it smoothed out.
Now, I'm gonna give my theory about that. The very first issue that came out was one of these representations that I have since seen out of the Church, where L. Ron Hubbard goes into this whole thing about how he is Satan, how he had a part in all of this, in the Book of Revelations. Then there's other ones that don't say that he is Satan but say something else, but what is common amongst all the OTVIII documents that I have seen is the slander of Jesus Christ, being a pedophile, a lover of little boys, and a slander on religion. So even if you minus the controversy about whether or not L. Ron Hubbard said he was Satan, there's other threads that run through all the documents that are common that makes it obvious who he thinks he is and what he thinks about Jesus Christ. And on one hand denies it ever happened and then on the other hand, said he's a pedophile.
L: So, he himself, the head of Scientology, was visibly upset by the content of the original OTVIII?
J: Yeah, he was shaking his head like, "Man, I don't even know if we can put this stuff out."
L: Let me just bring something up here. So, there were two OTVIIIs. The first one was released to a group of people over three and half months, and people were freaking out and reacting very, very badly to it.
J: Right.

No comments:

Post a Comment