Wikipedia Scientology recordings

Share your personal experiences with others. We're not here to judge or criticise, but to share and support.

Moderator: Dorothy

Post Reply
MOWWstaffer
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:18 am

Wikipedia Scientology recordings

Post by MOWWstaffer » Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:35 am

While working as a staffer at the Mission Office World Wide (MOWW) in East Grinstead during the early 80s, I was moving up the Bridge through study and student auditing. I blew staff before going Clear, so never had the opportunity to hear some of LRHs advanced materials.

However, Wikipedia has done a great job of amassing a great deal of his material, which you can find through this link: http://wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title= ... ding&go=Go. I've been listening to them with fascination, and with relief - I'm glad I hadn't sacrificed any more of my life just for the sake of hearing them.

I have to say, while listening to these lectures, I am thoroughly impressed with Ron's genius. He was a wonderfully creative story teller, and the theories of mind and spirituality he outlines are cogent, cohesive, and compelling. Unfortunately for his adherents, also quite fallacious. What a masterful fraud he was!

User avatar
I'mglib
Posts: 5748
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:17 pm

Re: Wikipedia Scientology recordings

Post by I'mglib » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:40 am

Welcome to the board, MOWWstaffer. Thanks for the link to the lectures. Glad you got out and didn't lose too much time in the "fraud."
"A man may build himself a throne of bayonets, but he cannot sit on it." -William Ralph Inge

Watch the Los Angeles press conference here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScilonTV#p/

User avatar
gray_geek
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:44 am

Re: Wikipedia Scientology recordings

Post by gray_geek » Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:53 am

MOWWstaffer wrote:While working as a staffer at the Mission Office World Wide (MOWW) in East Grinstead during the early 80s, I was moving up the Bridge through study and student auditing. I blew staff before going Clear, so never had the opportunity to hear some of LRHs advanced materials.

However, Wikipedia has done a great job of amassing a great deal of his material, which you can find through this link: http://wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title= ... ding&go=Go. I've been listening to them with fascination, and with relief - I'm glad I hadn't sacrificed any more of my life just for the sake of hearing them.

I have to say, while listening to these lectures, I am thoroughly impressed with Ron's genius. He was a wonderfully creative story teller, and the theories of mind and spirituality he outlines are cogent, cohesive, and compelling. Unfortunately for his adherents, also quite fallacious. What a masterful fraud he was!
I've listened to this one:
http://wlstorage.net/file/scientology-r ... f-fire.mp3

This guy (LRH) was driven by paranoia. The whole world was against him from the very beginning.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA

Re: Wikipedia Scientology recordings

Post by Demented LRH » Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:40 pm

The data should be downloaded from the website if one wants to read it. I do not feel like throwing a pile of shit into my computer.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10248
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Re: Wikipedia Scientology recordings

Post by Wieber » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:53 am

Welcome to the Bake, MOWWstaffer.

There was a time I would have just eaten that stuff up. As I write that I have some ideas about Hubbard and his fantastic tech. I wouldn't bother even looking at it now.

With every little piece of his tech - Affinity-Reality-Communication, Goals Problem Mass, Service Facsimile, Suppressive/Potential Trouble Source are some examples - he made the concept of each difficult to grasp and related the information in such a way that there was always a hint of something left out and that there is more to it than what is being given.

There were always announcements of breakthroughs on each little thing as well. The material was hard to grasp, incomplete and always followed up with new information and breakthroughs. It kept people in and coming back for more and more.

Another aspect of that was that those people who were involved with $cientology had (and still have) a hierarchy based on how much $cientology one knows. This could be expressed as, "I know more $cientology than you." When two $cientologists meet for the first time they kind of treat each other the way dogs do by sniffing each others' behind. With people involved in $cientology instead of going nose to backside one of the first things they find out about each other is their training level with the technology -- Hubbard Communications Office Bulletins (HCOBs) -- and the administrative materials -- Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letters (HCOPLs). In doing that they establish a dominance order.

They will also establish their auditing level, which they will factor in, but training level always outranks auditing level and technical training outranks administrative training.

The questions that tend to be asked are: What's your training level? What course are you on? What's your next course? Where are you on the bridge? (meaning auditing level)

You will also notice that people involved in $cientology introduce themselves with their auditing level, training levels, and, if they were on staff, their post history and most recent post. For example: "I'm OT-IV, Class Six, OEC, DMI-I/C INT, and have been Course Supervisor, Word Clearer, Examiner & Receptionist. They also like to say how long they've been in and what levels of org they've worked in.

With those who have left you can almost tell how well their recovery is going by how much of that stuff they omit when introducing themselves.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA

Re: Wikipedia Scientology recordings

Post by Demented LRH » Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Wieber wrote:Another aspect of that was that those people who were involved with $cientology had (and still have) a hierarchy based on how much $cientology one knows. This could be expressed as, "I know more $cientology than you." When two $cientologists meet for the first time they kind of treat each other the way dogs do by sniffing each others' behind. With people involved in $cientology instead of going nose to backside one of the first things they find out about each other is their training level with the technology -- Hubbard Communications Office Bulletins (HCOBs) -- and the administrative materials -- Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letters (HCOPLs). In doing that they establish a dominance order.
Yes, they try to establish a dominance order. It works in most cases, but it did not work in my case because I was telling everybody who was willing to listen that I have read Volume I and II of Dianetics Series. The material presented in these Volumes is no longer used for auditing, so I was, perhaps, the only person who read it. I was in a league of my own. They knew that this material is useless and obsolete, but they could not say that openly because it was an insult to Hubbard.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Tenor
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:23 pm

Re: Wikipedia Scientology recordings

Post by Tenor » Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:05 pm

MOWWstaffer wrote:While working as a staffer at the Mission Office World Wide (MOWW) in East Grinstead during the early 80s, I was moving up the Bridge through study and student auditing. I blew staff before going Clear, so never had the opportunity to hear some of LRHs advanced materials.

However, Wikipedia has done a great job of amassing a great deal of his material, which you can find through this link: http://wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title= ... ding&go=Go. I've been listening to them with fascination, and with relief - I'm glad I hadn't sacrificed any more of my life just for the sake of hearing them.

I have to say, while listening to these lectures, I am thoroughly impressed with Ron's genius. He was a wonderfully creative story teller, and the theories of mind and spirituality he outlines are cogent, cohesive, and compelling. Unfortunately for his adherents, also quite fallacious. What a masterful fraud he was!
MOWWstaffer (and anyone else),

What is it that you find fallacious? There're people who readily refer to LRH as a fraud, and to Scn as "a crock" but when I have asked, "What specifically do you mean, what do you find so "full of shit"?" I do not get any answer. No one says, "I do not believe man is a spirit". No one says, "I don't believe the reactive mind exists at all." All I get back is stuff like, "Xenu is ridiculous", or "You must be brainwashed", or "Hubbard just wanted to make money." Or I get stuff about, "Scientific theory requires the administration of a double-blind test under adequately supervised conditions with willing participants sampled randomly from a statistically significant population, with assignable standard deviations ... now excuse me." Or I get, "I believe in Jesus as The Lord and my Savior."

But no one yet has given me a specific which addresses the fundamentals such as the interactions of ARC (Affinity - Reality - Communication) or that mental mass can be dissipated, or the theory that an earlier similar incident pursued to the first such incident will resolve a chain of incidents. I really would like to know, because most of what I get leaves me with the impression that most simply think they know everything.

Having studied some science, I know that in order to disprove a theory one must actually look at it first, then find the flaw, and show the correction of the fallacy. It is not enough to say, "It's bunk." And I know that many a hypothesis has been corrected, and with the correction, has evolved into a theory, which has evolved into something useful. You may view me as "confrontational" but what I'm asking for is an amply fair question.

Tenor.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA

Re: Wikipedia Scientology recordings

Post by Demented LRH » Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:18 pm

Tenor wrote:
MOWWstaffer wrote:While working as a staffer at the Mission Office World Wide (MOWW) in East Grinstead during the early 80s, I was moving up the Bridge through study and student auditing. I blew staff before going Clear, so never had the opportunity to hear some of LRHs advanced materials.

However, Wikipedia has done a great job of amassing a great deal of his material, which you can find through this link: http://wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title= ... ding&go=Go. I've been listening to them with fascination, and with relief - I'm glad I hadn't sacrificed any more of my life just for the sake of hearing them.

I have to say, while listening to these lectures, I am thoroughly impressed with Ron's genius. He was a wonderfully creative story teller, and the theories of mind and spirituality he outlines are cogent, cohesive, and compelling. Unfortunately for his adherents, also quite fallacious. What a masterful fraud he was!
But no one yet has given me a specific which addresses the fundamentals such as the interactions of ARC (Affinity - Reality - Communication) or that mental mass can be dissipated, or the theory that an earlier similar incident pursued to the first such incident will resolve a chain of incidents. I really would like to know, because most of what I get leaves me with the impression that most simply think they know everything.

Having studied some science, I know that in order to disprove a theory one must actually look at it first, then find the flaw, and show the correction of the fallacy. It is not enough to say, "It's bunk." And I know that many a hypothesis has been corrected, and with the correction, has evolved into a theory, which has evolved into something useful. You may view me as "confrontational" but what I'm asking for is an amply fair question.

Tenor.
I would not say that ARC theory, or whatever it is called, is incorrect; but I would say that this is a bunch of platitudes that everyone knows about without having to learn a thing about Scientology. Even when I was a Scientologist, I came to conclusion that all this ARC stuff boils down to a simple proposition -- In order to reach common goal, people must communicate with one another.

I haven’t heard about “mental mass” when I was a Scientologist, so I do not know what you are referring to. However, recently someone posted at ESMB the stuff that Hubbard wrote about the engrams -- it turned out, they have the mass, which diminishes during Dianetics auditing. I think that everyone watching that thread got a good laugh out of it.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA

Re: Wikipedia Scientology recordings

Post by Demented LRH » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:10 pm

This discussion about Hubbard’s failures sent me down the memory lane.

When I was a Scientologist, my prime goal was to continue Hubbard’s research in Dianetics. Nevertheless, I was reading the other Hubbard stuff, too.

1. The materials regarding 8 dynamics.
I did not think that anything was wrong with it, it just seemed primitive and arbitrary to me.
Marx, for example, considered only 2 dynamics, although he did not use the word “dynamics” -- self and the society.
Kant had three “dynamics” -- self, family and society. I agreed with Kant in a sense that a smaller number of dynamics seemed incomplete to me, while a larger number of dynamics was unnecessary complication.
There were systems with 10 and even more dynamics, but I forgot their authors’ names.
Kant was a towering figure, Hubbard was nobody compared to him. Then again, Kant did not invent Dianetics, but Hubbard did, so I was not terribly upset by Hubbard being dwarfed by Kant in the area that was of little interest to me.

2. The Science of Survival.
At the time of reading this book I was an atheist (I am no longer an atheist). This Hubbard book looked to me like a primitive textbook on biology, it was nothing in comparison to the books written by Darwin, Dobzhansky, Mayer and other prominent evolutionists. I did not think that The Science of Survival contained erroneous data, it just looked too trivial to me. But, from my point of view, The Science of Survival had nothing in common with the books on Dianetics auditing, so its primitive content did not make a negative impression on me.

3. The ARC stuff.
One of my favorite magazines was Psychology Today. Compared to the Psychology Today articles, the ARC stuff was at a kindergarten level, although I would not call it incorrect. But the ARC is totally separated from the Dianetics data, so I did not mind Hubbard talking in banalities.

4. The OT data.
As an atheist, I totally rejected this data. If Hubbard were alive at the time of my involvement with Scientology, I would have told him, “Take my soul (thetan) out of my body and hypnotize it, so I could see that the souls could be hypnotized at the implant stations”. (I am not referring to the confidential data -- I read a non-confidential article where Hubbard briefly described the implant stations and their purpose). I would have asked Hubbard to give me empirical data about the thetans.
I was not upset by Hubbard’s belief in “crazy shit” because the greatest scientist of all times, Newton, also believed in a batshit. Everyone, including Hubbard, is entitled to his/her crazy beliefs.

When I was a Scientologist, 99% of Hubbard writings looked like primitive, albeit correct theories not worthy of an intellectually advanced person like me. But I did not blame Hubbard for being simple-minded -- I thought that vast majority of the Scientologists either do not have higher education or slow or both, so LRH, in his infinite compassion, wrote plenty of primitive stuff for them in attempt to educate them and, perhaps, even prepare them for the college.

I do not mean to insult anyone with the things that I wrote in the above paragraph, I just described my attitude towards Hubbard writings at the time of my encounter with Scientology. It was back then, I have a different view of Hubbard persona these days.
Last edited by Demented LRH on Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

MOWWstaffer
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:18 am

Re: Wikipedia Scientology recordings

Post by MOWWstaffer » Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:14 am

Thanks to everyone who responded to my post. I appreciate and respect your input and viewpoints.

I, too, found value in the concepts of ARC and the 8 Dynamics. I was very open to the idea of Whole Track, but the specific stories that Hubbard told about the history of thetans, particularly the Xenu incident, were just too incredible for me to believe. I suspect there may be much uncover about the ancient history of beings, but Hubbard's liturgy is presented with no corroboration, and reads like cheap science fiction. Based on my experiences at Saint Hill, I'm quite certain it was - all I saw in our day to day operations was an agenda to exploit a receptive audience with fantastic revelations for the sake of Ron's, then DM's, personal enrichment.

Post Reply

Return to “Your story from inside Scientology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest