Scientology's Stars Rally Against a $39 Mil Award June 10, 1985, Dianna Waggoner, People Unfortunately there's no way of proving if Scientology supplied that term or if the reporter substituted it for the buzzwords. (Hmm. Court dox from the trial, especially when he's first put on the stand.)
Nope. No way to tell. But this guy (from the CoS protest in Portland) does look a bit like Hoden. I hope he lieks hoels
LOL, God Nerd. Ouch. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christian-piatt/the-nerd-gospel_b_1186471.html?ref=tw Also - new dox coming. The recent mag leaks has vols 3-5 all but finalized, and v3 is being cranked out in the imminent future. (fingers crossed)
latest greatest project outline: Scientology Religiosity? Materials Index http://www.scribd.com/doc/57784121/Scientology-Religiosity-Materials-Index
The next epic release, has arrived. /bows Scientology Religiosity? Volume III: The History of Christianity & Gospel of Jesus On Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/78822500/Scientology-Religiosity-Volume-III?in_collection=3084764 Alternate Fileshare: http://www.mediafire.com/?725ftk4wctagf25 The extended collection of Scientology Religiosity? publications and supporting works is available online at: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3084764/Scientology-Religiosity I'm just a curbside prophet got my hand in my pocketAnd Imma waitin' for my rocket to c'mon...Now your speakin on the topic of a curbside propheteverybody come to me they ask me how they can unlock it.I say shizz, if this is all there isits just fillin' in the blanks liek mad libs.Hey Hey Hey. Something is Different in my world today!How ya like me now cult?
Very fine production, AnonLover! Like the prior volumes, III is very well laid out, easy to navigate, and has very good production values! Bravo! <3
Shameless bump for more views... Volume III (see post up above) was the motherload of work to get done. Its a small chunk larger than the norm I was shooting for, and yet i cut out or shifted like 7 or 8 major subsections to keep it under 300 pages. This volume is the epicenter of all the heavy duty Christianity topics. Unbelievable how much anti-christian spew was let loose from Hubbard and his organization over the years. Not to mention, how thick that spew was laid down in the early years. Thus, there was easily 3-4 times more work put into volume III than the first two combined. Volume IV is up next. And due to the delay on getting what I wanted to finish up Volume III, I already got the next one about 2/3rds of the way done. So assuming I dont find a date to go out and do some friday nite hell raising tonight, there's a very good chance of the 4th installment in this project series to be done by Sunday evening.
An extra set of fileshares, for getting the latest copies of all three released volumes in one place plust the current project outline / materials index (that changes on a regular basis). http://www.mediafire.com/?l13d11wrrpfqz
I know that you mean well, but it looks like you're naively making a case for Hubbard's religion angle and his religious cloaking. Maybe you should spend some time pondering the meaning of "angle" and the meaning of "cloaking."
This is a catalog of research materials. there is no written work at this time making any argument whatsoever, thats a fantasy in your own mind because a cursory look with a wee tiny bit of brain power & the materials speak for themselves in terms the utter hypocrisy of the cult's claim at being a religion. but small minded people that hate all things related to the "r" word have that deep down hatred & bigoty that results in mega blind stupidity. so of course their gonna think that without looking thru the shit. and thats ok - cuz not only is the stupid too big to fathom what this project is doing, thats not the audience it's intended for.
The "OT 8" being referenced is the hoax "Hubbard as lucifer, Christ loved young boys" one that was slipped into a stack of Scientology documents at a court case and signed off on by Moxon, before Earl Cooley realized it was not one of theirs and disowned it. Since then, since it mentions Lucifer and young boys, it's been a favorite of some people. So, not only are you guys reinforcing Scientology's fake religious cloaking, you promoting a fake document that muddies the water, and reduces the credibility of those who have worked hard to expose Scientology as a non-religious racket, and also expose Hubbard's dark occult influences. In short, I am disappointed.
You are assembling a sea of words and images that mostly consist of Scientology PR, without considering the consequences. YOU ARE HELPING SCIENTOLOGY.
The idea that these materials are "myths" is one put forth by various - sometimes paid by Scientology Inc. - religious "experts," who make sure to cloud the fact that Scientology is a potentially dangerous psychological system that teaches that the there is a cosmic history exactly recorded on a "time track." There are no "myths" in Scientology; there are lies, and delusions.
I thought i was careful to weed that out of all the OG materials i reused so far - can you tell me where you see it at on Vols 1-3?
I was the librarian at the Lisa McPherson Trust. We had one of the largest collections of Scientology material outside of Scientology in the world. Does that mean we were helping Scientology?
/facepalm Congrats on proving so effectively that you haven't even looked at what I've done for more than a few seconds. An attention span bigger than a fly is required here, but I'll try and break it down for even an idiot to understand. My packets combine examples of the PR bs they feed the outside world, and the internal PR they feed their own members, and the actual shi- being taught in books & lectures plus the policies behind many of the PR lies. ^^All of which contradicts each other and lays out that they say one thing but enforce something entirely different. Then in addition to those stark contrasts presented, there is also critical media & academic materials in the mix plus more critical works laid out in a path of additional study for a given subsection under the Further Reading sections (which is the most important part of the packets). Chanology's earliest messages included emphasis on "find out for yourself" - but there is several problems with doing that: scientology is a massive global PR machine, the shit is thick. The majority of informative website are old and dated looking. Wikipedia articles are a farce. Wikileaks being online is hit or miss. And the educational anon websites that present a srs bizness approach to subject matter are nearly non-existent. So if you weren't such an "r" word hating idiot, or actually worked harpooning angles where you try to get educators and community role models with a formal education to become informed, you'd know there is still a huge vacuum in informing the public to the point they see that scientology isnt just a freak show to treat like its entertainment where you just sit back and laugh at it but not take it seriously. Someone who's formally educated in a field related to religion studies, always wants to see all sides of a controversy before they judge it for themselves. Just reading the basic books and the cult's website doesnt even penetrate the slime to get at the what the cult's real doctrine are teaching. In my experiences, that common approach to "finding out for myself" leaves the educated church goer person entrenched in a state of "Meh. LRH's books are so utterly stupid, why should i care?" I for one, got tired of explaining "oh but there's so much more...." when attention has already waned. I've also been disappointed more times than I can count with your average college student looking for research materials for world religions 101/102 course and there is just so much crap to wade thru that's either ranting ravings that doesnt actually present anything an educated person can take seriously... or stuff put together solely for the freak show entertainment of converting more people into do-nothing scientology watchers (like Reitman's book) So far, I've gotten nothing but positive feedback from people in my target audience with the manner in which I'm approaching this (bible thumpers of the collar wearing variety, grad & post-grad students working in religious studies fields, and even a couple soc profs who take going-to-church srsly due to the bible-based nature of the institutions they work for). It is possible to approach an ugly subject objectively, review all sides equally, and come to a much more informed conclusion that ZOMG this is worse than I thought!!1! And I want my target audience to reach that epiphany AND be inspired to speak out against or write about the cult. Because let's face it, the "r" word is the biggest button they have - scilons go absolutely apeshit when you question their religiosity. And when they go apeshit - they show just how warped and dis-functional they really are. So you need to look at these packets like a term-paper or media kit - everything you need to know to dig down under the cults PR and form a knowledgeable opinion plus easily cite relevant materials to make a strong argument against the cult. Also - there is vast untapped territory in the religious right ranks for our cause. I see it as the last frontier. I want more recognizable names like Cardinal Oullet and Archbishop Rivas speaking out in an informed fashion. I want more religion-based lobbyist groups cognizant of the fact that when they bawwwwl for more "religious freedom" and less IRS paperwork, that their being irresponsible in light of the breaks they clamor for also benefiting controversial NRMs like scientology. And lastly - last summer I found 4 preachers in the US who held a bible study workshop exploring NRMs that covered Scientology. I want to see even more of the same this summer, except i want the slideshows they lecture with to go a whole lot deeper than a rehash of the basic points that Walter Martin laid out nearly 2 decades ago. FWIW - one of ^^those bible study group preachers contacted me personally via my scribd profile asking for help on where to find certain types of info for his lectures that I couldnt easily point him too. And the lack of depth in his presentation materials (thats included in my scribd collection altho I wont point out which one to protect his anonymity) shows just how hard it was/is for him to ferret out despite working hard on his materials from May thru July. It's moments like ^^That, where you have to put your extremely critical views aside and present info in a way conducive to "Find out for yourself." Unfortunately, the objective viewpoint is often the most hard to swallow let alone work under by those deeply entrenched in one side or the other of an ugly debate point. But the objective POV gets the most mileage in the long run due to not being weighted down with the baggage of obvious bias. Especially when its used for educating rather than marketing purposes (like Reitman's faux claim of her neutral uninformative POV actually being anything akin to a real objective view point in the scholarly sense). So yes, its not surprising someone highly critical would have a shitfit at first glance that what I'm doing isn't too their liking because I am slicing & dicing out the view from all sides in order to enable someone who's educated in religious study fields to decide for themselves. I look at it as a sanitation worker project... the worst of the worst shit needs shoveled out of the trench and brought into the light and served up in a way that exploits its worst characteristics such that it makes their claim to being a religion highly offensive to those who take religion seriously. If you personally don't take the "r" word seriously, you're not likely to "get it" at this point in time. And I suggest you wait until I get farther along, when we have a solid example of something that derives from this project that present an argument in the form a written work or presentation, before you jump to conclusions that are limited by your own critical bias. There comes a time for "leveling up" above the raeg filled mud slinging, and imo opinion - the two books published last year has brought that time to the forefront. Reitman wasted too many inches of pages novelizing Scientology into a series of Lifetime movies without living up to the subtitle's claim of actually going "inside" the "religion" aspects of what the cult practices & preaches. While Urban explored the history behind Scientology being accepted as a legit NRM and posed the question of "who should decide what is or isnt a religion?" Urban's effective staging of that question lit a fire under my ass because as a bible thumper & someone who's been studying new age & religious beliefs as a history buff since I was teenager, I see Urban's question as a huge button that can be pushed: peeps who take their religion seriously think only they can answer that question. Once upon a time, there was several vocal bible thumpers that put scientology and other cults in their crosshairs and spoke out profusely. But Chanology has yet to bring that back into fashion. The cult sued Craig Branch into silence, Walter Martin kicked the bucket and his foundation fell by the wayside, the apologetic websites have nothing new in terms of educational materials since the 1990's, and Christian media outlets seldom do more than recap major media outlet headlines because they have no new scholarship to draw on. We Chanologists who have harvested & studied the leaks, interacted with former members, and seen a broad variety of the cults materials and practices in action can do something about those limitations. But it requires playing to your audience on their own stage and in a manner that is in accordance with traditional bible/religious study practices. Until now, that audience wasn't likely to "get it" in regards to the usual anon tactics and our satirical style was more often than not a turn off to those considering serious study. I aim to rise above that knee jerk impression, and deliver the goods in a way they can relate too - not in a way we hardcore critics can relate too, cuz fact is we got the leaks & battle-worn experience so we dont need it served to us the way we like it. And its shortsighted of us to not see the "r" word is at the heart of why scientology is so bad, and why they get away with it.
Pssffft.... My tl;dr is anon's fault for pissing in my cornflakes before I had full coffee intake. So much for me not doing a written work on this shi- UNTIL after i get past Vol5 midpoint in the series.
(chuckles) uhhh yeah. multiple times in fact. But you have to get past the initial hardcore critic freak out of seeing the "r" word on the cover and actually look beyond the end of your nose and read what I've explained at the start of this thread, or in the related OCMB thread where alot more srs research gathering is getting done, or in the actual packets themselves in the frontmatter intro pages. Now I admit - this territory I'm plowing into aint for everyone. And its tough shit to shovel not only cuz its fugly, but its a very fine line to walk between "find out for yourself what makes it so bad" versus "we dont protest their beliefs, just their practices." Since those practices are all mandated & conditioned into followers by the belief system - to truly kick the cult where it counts most, sooner or later some sector needs to get fired up enough to rip off the religious cloaking shield and smack their ass hard. We anons are NOT fit nor enable to do that job. And here in the US, the authorities and major media are still too chicken shit to dig down into the fugly deep enough to do that job the justice it deserves. So I've looked to other fronts to do that job for us. And the priests, preachers and bible thumpers who have captive audiences outside of our reach seem like a dam good target to inspire & empower with knowledge. Added bonus - unlike the religious scholars in public institutions who have to waltz with the NRM woo recognition in politically correct fashion, the bible thumpers & theologians get rubbed the wrong way to begin with by anything falling under the wing of a "NRM" and their tactics include preaching fire & brimstone come hell or high water to make their points stick. ^^Highly Exploitable. Yes it is. But it takes singing a different tune and marching to a slightly different beat than what we typically trumpet here in the hive. If you can't relate - just wait. Big project is big, just wait and see what I do with it when its done. Let the geek in pink take a shot at it, and you might be surprised at what I manage to accomplish. Sometimes you gotta fit in, to get in.
imo no - its not a religion. but I'm a christfag so I'm biased, and i am trying to set that bias aside with my approach to this.
And its fking saturday... after a hell week that included an all-nighter tech support emergency and the release of damn near 300 pages of content. So typing too much tl;dr ITT isnt conducive to my coffee addiction. The pot went cold before i drank more than half of it!!! (and thats a big sin for my first pot of coffee)
FWIW, i agree its seen as a religion. and i respect the fact that there are those who truly believe it is. to a scilon, yes it is - and that belief + the finely spun PR qualifies it as NRM. If you were to ask me "Is it a NRM" i would firmly agree - yes it is. but ultimately your question of "Is it a religion" can only be answered by a given person for their own personal take on it. and their personal opinion is only relevant to them. freedom of religion is a two edge sword yo, cuts both ways. So when you ask me that, I'm gonna say no - not according to way i see practice the "r" word. but that's just my personal opinion on an irrelevant question. The more important question is the NRM query, thats what gets them their tax breaks & political favors. And its the grey murky areas such as this, that I aim to make easier to navigate.
Awww, leave the puppet alone. This is good to get out in the open. I should of been made to run the troll gamut on this project early on since anon + religion = oil & water. (smirks) And I tried my damnedest to instigate that trolling early on in this project just to get it out of the way before i got buried in burning dox. Nobody took the bait tho, so its overdue and better we do it nao than later
omg. my avatar changed. TAUPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /ragequit
u may rue those words in my vague interpretation, people who use a given practice or discipline as a guiding purpose for their life, with emotional, intellectual and behavioral characteristics derived from their own understanding of that practice, they are practicing a religion. Many scientists, are (imo) religious acolytes in this sense. Many allegedly Christian [people who are] scientists, are predominately religiously scientific and less religiously Christian. Some are both, some are religiously Christian and don't take science all that seriously. Many plane-jane Christians aren't practicing a religion, imo. Many atheists are (and many are not). Some Scientologists practice a religion of Scientology, but almost all of those are Public. The central organization has a few religious people scattered throughout, but they usually end up getting declared SPs. The Hole could have more religious Scientologists than RTC, CSI, combined. DM is a fraud. Rathbun "found religion" when he got dumped on his ass. (a popular place to find it!) Given the degree to which secular and non-secular are munched together, for me it's hopeless trying to define Scientology as a religion or not, but my own definition of religion could be hopeless, too. I would say Hubbard resembled a religious person, but his guiding principle was insanity, and not derived from spiritual or scientific pursuit.
Not when it brings out excellent points like the ones you just made. None of which i disagree with, except you gotta admit this one bit is grossly overgeneralizing & overly slanting into what you says doesnt matter" ^^Therein lies the rub with the "r" word, there are a vast number of vague interpretations. All legit in their own right due to a pesty set of words called "religious freedom." And it all depends on which camp your in, in regards for what feels right for you. But that has nothing to do with what other shade of grey may or may not fit right for somebody else. For you it may be hopeless, but for those who live & breath by their own personal intepretation the "r" word - it is NOT hopelesss but the first & the most important question they have when they begin looking at Scientology critically. No stone unturned... and no reason why we cant make seeking answers easier on that oh so tricky "is it a religion?" question for those who it does matter too. ^^This I fully subscribe too as well. AndI hope to make that conclusion a whole lot easier to arrive at when edumucated biblethumpers, religious studies students, and those of strong inclinations towards the other major faiths take a long hard look at scilons and say hmmmm.
You're correct, it's not a religion. In Scientology, religions are the result of "whole track implants." Just because the rank and file are told to repeat, "My religion," and "the Scientology religion," to the Wogs, does not make it a religion, unless one considers that anything that is repeated often enough is "true." As for your presentation, it needs editing, and needs an outline that clarifies for the reader what it is, and IS immediately VISIBLE. Otherwise, carry on with the good work.
Thx for the constructive criticism, it's been needed for quite awhile and I was giving up hope of getting any feedback whatsoever. Mind not being so broad tho? Where & how do you suggest the presentation needs edited? My main focus has primarily been on the slicing & dicing of topical subject matter (as shown by all the detail in the materials index document). Big project is big, and altho i'm still carving things up - refining it into a better form as I go along is a part of my work in progress. And sorry but "immediately visible" makes me smile. the sidebar on the cover states it's a research catalog and the basic focus. The fair use disclaimer is far more important to have first. The documents are too large to not have that followed by series index & TOC. So the clarify I suspect you missed starts on pg7-9 where I state the series abstract & summary for the whole set, followed by a volume specific summary. So its in the first 10pgs and is as close to the front as it can get. Gimme suggestions on how to make that better if you got 'em, otherwise I likely wont get to those refinements until I get all 10 publications done and go back and groom the finer points for overall cohesiveness.
I just searched the 3 volumes for "Way to Happiness" and only got a couple hits 71 pages into the 2nd volume! Given that this is the first thing shown by Scientology to media/disaster survivors/recruits, I'd like to see a statement-by-statement comparison with examples of how Scientology's actions throughout its history contradict that booklet within the first few pages of volume 1.
Yeah I havent found a good place for that and would like to see it as well for the same reasoning. But i didnt make it a priority for inclusion *yet* because TWTH is also a secular program/front - they claim up & down its NOT apart of their religiosity. psssfffttt - i know. But since I'm solely targeting the "r" word angle, and thats a big freaking angle to cover as-is, my feeling is that each of the frontgroups need their own project to target effectively. And I already got a shit ton of stuff lumped into what I'm aiming to do. Like David Love is hell bent on Narconon, somebody else should be hell bent on TWTH. And altho Imma sorta busy right now with the "r" word angle, I might maybe someday over the rainbow get around to attacking frontgroup stuff like I previously did with my Applied Scholastics Exposed dox, at a much later date if nobody else does. IOW - i agree, just doeet. its not on my immediate radar anytime soon. EDIT: also, the better way to search my shit to see if i hit a given thing, is too search the materials index document, as its the center square crossref of the whole she-bang.
