Scientology Exposé from the St Petersburg Times

Tsig, he said SOME apostates. I don't think that counts as demonizing them. However, I do find him dishonest about it because he claims not to know about apostates being demonized. The opening post is about ex-scientologists who are being demonized by the CoS in response to allegations of abuse by David M. I also think he's dishonest about the RS2-45 method of auditting because there are both links and descriptions in this thread about it.

Fred Carr likes to ignore evidence of the silly parts of his "religion" as well as dismiss criticisms as mere fabrications. I believe he is simply a CoS shill, here to convince people that Scientology is a harmless religion, when there is a mass of evidence that says otherwise.

I also think he's dishonest about the RS2-45 method of auditting because there are both links and descriptions in this thread about it.

Click to expand...

It was a joke. Its not a method of auditing/counseling. Ron clearly said that. Jeez. (Reading over my post I can't help but comment upon this point. You say I'm dishonest because there are links and descriptions in this thread about it. I said it was a joke and that it clearly says so in the book. If links and descriptions are considered better evidence than the book itself then...idk what to say.)

I don't know about any apostates being demonized. ( To represent as evil or diabolic) Well maybe I do per that definition. If members leave the church and say that the head of the church is acting as a demon then isn't it the apostates that are doing the demonizing? If we call them liars for doing so then are you saying that we are demonizing apostates but that they are not demonizing Mr. Miscavige.

Personally I would simple call them treasonous (betrayal of trust or confidence) and leave it at that but then I don't have to deal with reporters.

thaiboxer - You are making it clear that you think I am a shill. That I am ignoring evidence of the parts of my religion you consider silly. Yet I am sure it is safe to say that I am far more familiar with my religion than most.

I wouldn't dream of trying to convince anyone of anything on the net. Much less on this board.

Re earlier comment upon materialism. I think were using different definitions of "Materialism" (This is the one I was using - Philosophy The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.)

Personally the whole getting told I am a liar is getting old. I'm pretty sincere for the most part and try to make it clear when I'm kidding around. (On the net and in life.) If we can't communicate from a foundation of being somewhat sincere then whats the point in communicating at all.

fredcarr said:

It was a joke. Its not a method of auditing/counseling. Ron clearly said that. Jeez.

Click to expand...

I doubt it. Feel free to provide evidence for your claim. I find it hard to believe that L. Ron would send out pamplets for this kind of "treatment" then claim it's a joke afterwards because there are plenty of other "treatments" that are just as absurd used by Scientology today.

I don't know about any apostates being demonized. ( To represent as evil or diabolic) Well maybe I do per that definition. If members leave the church and say that the head of the church is acting as a demon then isn't it the apostates that are doing the demonizing? If we call them liars for doing so then are you saying that we are demonizing apostates but that they are not demonizing Mr. Miscavige.

Click to expand...

I'd hardly call it demonizing if what they say is true. Since it's a few members, some of whom were high-ranking, making the allegations, it appears that there may be some truth to the matter. Scientology has a long history of attacking those who criticize the church, there is even a policy for it called "fair game." Fair game has been discontinued, but only by name, CoS still attacks it's critics.

Son, they may have revised the RS2-45 to say it was a joke, just like later editors have revised ALL of L-Ron's writings.

But it wasn't a joke when he said it, and he ORDERED its use on some defectors.

BTW, do they tell you about the "Satanic"* Sex Orgies he was a part of?






* Actually they were Ordo Templi Orientis, which is different, but not in the public mind.

fredcarr said:

Personally I would simple call them treasonous (betrayal of trust or confidence) and leave it at that but then I don't have to deal with reporters.

Click to expand...

Which says nothing about the truth of what they say. In general, if someone is called treasonous because of information they give out I believe that the treasonous information would be accurate more often than not.

TBK - I did provide evidence. I said go look in the book.

fredcarr said:

TBK - I did provide evidence. I said go look in the book.

Click to expand...

Where can I find this book? Oh yea, I have to be a member of Scientology to see it because they copyright all of their books so other people can't make $$$ off of them. What is the title of the book? Can you scan the relevant pages for us? Can you tell us which revision this book is?

Was it a joke when L Ron ordered this "auditing" method to be used against enemies of the CoS under fair-game?

fredcarr said:

I don't know about any apostates being demonized. ( To represent as evil or diabolic) Well maybe I do per that definition. If members leave the church and say that the head of the church is acting as a demon then isn't it the apostates that are doing the demonizing? If we call them liars for doing so then are you saying that we are demonizing apostates but that they are not demonizing Mr. Miscavige.

Click to expand...

Dearie, dearie me, fred. You've never heard of these "anti-religious extremists"? The name "Arnie Lerma" doesn't ring a bell? Andreas Heldal-Lund? Tory Christman?

Strange thing that selection of extremists: the only thing they have in common is that they are or were vocal critics of Scientology.

But, of course, Joel Phillips, who owns that website has got nothing to do with Scientology. No sir, nothing at all.

http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/j/joel-phillips.html

thaiboxerken said:

Where can I find this book? Oh yea, I have to be a member of Scientology to see it because they copyright all of their books so other people can't make $$$ off of them. What is the title of the book? Can you scan the relevant pages for us? Can you tell us which revision this book is?

Was it a joke when L Ron ordered this "auditing" method to be used against enemies of the CoS under fair-game?

Click to expand...

It seems that R2-45 is mentioned in "The Creation of Human Ability", which you should be able to buy cheaply in second-hand bookstores.

Whether it is mentioned as a joke in the book, I don't know, but the fact that Hubbard issued an Ethics Order (very serious) demanding four people to be placed under "auditing procedure R2-45", casts a shadow of doubt on that claim.

http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/mcleann19781123.html

Where can I find this book? Oh yea, I have to be a member of Scientology to see it because they copyright all of their books so other people can't make $$$ off of them. What is the title of the book? Can you scan the relevant pages for us? Can you tell us which revision this book is?

Was it a joke when L Ron ordered this "auditing" method to be used against enemies of the CoS under fair-game?

Click to expand...

I'm at work so don't know editions. If you don't want to buy the book simply go to a local church and ask to see the reference.

(Some libraries may have it as well.) There is a lecture series that goes with the book as well. I haven't listened to those in their entirety but I think it may be mentioned in there as well. (As a joke!)

So the latest edition would work. I know it was in an earlier edition as well but don't know which edition that was.

My scanner at home isn't currently working. (It's really old and is not compatible with my latest computer.)

TBK - I'm really curious about a few things:

Do you think that Mr. Hubbard advocates/orders shooting someone as a method of counseling?

Do you also think you have to be a member of Scientology to go and read a book we have published so anyone can access it?

Do you think we copyright our books so other people can't make money off of them?

Do you really think I'm being dishonest?

fredcarr said:

Do you think that Mr. Hubbard advocates/orders shooting someone as a method of counseling?

Click to expand...

No, I think he advocated it as a method of "exteriorizing" a thetan. An extreme method, that he actually ordered for use against some of his detractors.

Do you also think you have to be a member of Scientology to go and read a book we have published so anyone can access it?

Click to expand...

Yes. Perhaps they may let me in the church, and let me read it, but I'm thinking they wouldn't leave me alone to read it in private.

Do you think we copyright our books so other people can't make money off of them?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Do you really think I'm being dishonest?

Click to expand...

Yes.

TBK - I appreciate your honesty in answering my questions. I won't bother answering any more of your questions since you think I'm being dishonest. Seems like it would be a waste of time for both of us.

The trouble is that, although the evidence points to Hubbard clearly implying that R2-45 was killing somebody, and the order docs for him executing that method are real, there's no evidence that Scientology ever actually had anyone shot or otherwise deliberately killed.

The actual orders are also inherently contradictory - how can the order for Sea Org personnel be to kill the target, when the other provisions relating to Fair Game exist on the same document? Why would you need to smear someone's name, AND kill them?

The answer I think lies in Paulette Cooper's story. She had someone dry-fire a pistol at her, and I think that R2-45 probably referred to mock-execution, rather than the real thing. Scientology is all about psychological manipulation.

Just a thought. At the end of the day, Hubbard was out of his mind. Trying to make sense of this stuff will send you the same way! So I see things like R2-45 as a bit of a red herring, at least pending good evidence that it was a genuine policy about conspiracy to commit murder.

Big Les said:

The trouble is that, although the evidence points to Hubbard clearly implying that R2-45 was killing somebody, and the order docs for him executing that method are real, there's no evidence that Scientology ever actually had anyone shot or otherwise deliberately killed.

The actual orders are also inherently contradictory - how can the order for Sea Org personnel be to kill the target, when the other provisions relating to Fair Game exist on the same document? Why would you need to smear someone's name, AND kill them?

The answer I think lies in Paulette Cooper's story. She had someone dry-fire a pistol at her, and I think that R2-45 probably referred to mock-execution, rather than the real thing. Scientology is all about psychological manipulation.

Just a thought. At the end of the day, Hubbard was out of his mind. Trying to make sense of this stuff will send you the same way! So I see things like R2-45 as a bit of a red herring, at least pending good evidence that it was a genuine policy about conspiracy to commit murder.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Besides, anyone with half a brain will easily discover what a giant scam $cientology is with only a little research. As always, Caveat emptor!


M.

fredcarr said:

I certainly don't have to answer to every allegation made against me and mine.

Click to expand...

There are so many. Could you touch on a few? Why does COS feel the need for fair game and labeling people (SP)?

That fits so well with the persecution complex I spoke of.

Fred,

My ego isn't so great that I need you to respond to my questions. I would have liked you to have responded to my posts but there are a lot of people in this thread and only one of you.

I understand.

However, please understand that when it comes to Scientology there is jsut so much evidence and much of it is corobrated in court, nespapers and amazingly by COS themselves. I don't know how I could possibly get past all of the claims of destroyed lives and broken families. I've corresponded with some people who've been cut off from their families completly.

Mormonism, often enough, results in broken families. As far as I know the Mormon church doesn't have an official policy of exclusion and avoidance. Mormonism stresses forgiveness and the importance of families. There acts sometimes conflict with that goal but ultimately Mormonism, IMO, leads to reconciliation.

COS? Not so much.

Big Les,

It is the equivalent of a Fatwa. Intimidation often works better than actual violence to silence somebody.

But note that it is alleged that some CoS critics have literally disappeared...

-Ben

fredcarr said:

TBK - I appreciate your honesty in answering my questions. I won't bother answering any more of your questions since you think I'm being dishonest. Seems like it would be a waste of time for both of us.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't think it's a waste of time. You can answer the questions, and I can show where you're dishonest. It will be of great value for people thinking of becoming Scientologists, as I can point out this thread for them to read and steer them clear of the cult.

But I understand, you are doing what many cultists do, isolate yourself from criticisms.

BenBurch said:

Big Les,

It is the equivalent of a Fatwa. Intimidation often works better than actual violence to silence somebody.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but many critics take it literally.

But note that it is alleged that some CoS critics have literally disappeared...

-Ben

Click to expand...

And it's exactly that kind of innuendo that, though perfectly understandable, doesn't really help us. We can imply they're murderers all we like, but we aren't doing so based upon evidence. Anecdotal evidence is very useful when, as with much of that relating to the CoS, it's consistent and overwhelming (and backed up by docs/court rulings). The reports of murder are neither.

I remember getting a lot of emails with threats of lawsuits et al when I put these articles on a dorment page of mine some time ago (mostly transcribed from other articles and information sites mind you):

*The Lisa McPherson Clause
*Scientology Curiosa: part 1

Excerpt from the latter article:
*Narconon, does the programme work?
"Narconon invariably makes claims of very high success rates - anything up to 85%, a remarkable figure when one considers that conventional drug rehabilitation programmes achieve only a rate of around 20-30%. It is, however, extraordinarily difficult to obtain the source data for such figures.

They appear never to have been published by Narconon and the organisation does not respond to requests for the data - Gisle Hannemyr, a Norwegian investigator of Narconon, tried unsuccessfully for four years and the author of these pages has had a similarly frustrating experience. Even Narconon occasionally appears to find it difficult to back up its own claims - when it sought to repudiate a critic in Stuttgart, Germany, in 1993 it was unable to provide any evidence to support its claims of efficacy, leading the administrative court to conclude that "The papers filed by the petitioner offer no evidence of a successful drug withdrawal at the petitioner." [Decision of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Stuttgart, 10 May 1993, Az: 1 S 3021/92]

"Narconon's claimed evidence falls into three distinct categories: Studies, Research papers and Success stories. The actual number of studies cited is surprisingly small, given Narconon's 25-year existence. Narconon's supporters have also produced a small body of research papers to support the organisation's claims. By far the largest body of evidence, however, is the reams of "success stories" written by individuals who have completed the Narconon programme. Each of these three groups of evidence is discussed in detail in the following pages:"

*Studies.
*Research papers.
*Success stories.

Curiosa quotes;
"The reactions of individuals and groups to criticism varies from grateful acceptance, or amused tolerance, at one end of the scale to a sense of outrage and vindictive counter-attack on the other. Perhaps unfortunately (especially for its adherents) Scientology falls at the hyper-sensitive end of the scale.
Judging from the documents, this would seem to have its origin in a personality trait of Mr. Hubbard, whose attitude to critics is one of extreme hostility. One can take the view that anyone whose attitude to criticism is such as Mr. Hubbard displays in his writings cannot be too surprised if the world treats him with suspicion rather than affection." -- Sir John Foster, "Report of the Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology" (1971), p. 127

"A Suppressive Person or Group becomes 'Fair Game'. By Fair Game is meant, without right for self, possessions or position, and no Scientologist may be brought before a Committee of Evidence or punished for any action taken against a Suppressive Person or Group during the period that person or group is 'fair game'."
-- Hubbard, Introduction to Scientology Ethics

What defined acts would be enough for a person to deserve the label of "Supressive Person", well, simply have a look at Hubbard's list below, taken from his Introduction to Scientology Ethics:

• Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations.
• Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened.
• Proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the suppression of Scientology.
• Pronouncing Scientologists guilty of the practice of standard Scientology.
• Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it.
• Reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practicing or receiving standard Scientology.
• Bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist including the nonpayment of bills or failure to refund without first calling the matter to the attention of the Chairman at Saint Hill and receiving a reply.
• Demanding the return of any or all fees paid for standard training or processing actually received or received in part and still available but undelivered only because of departure of the person demanding (the fees must be refunded but this policy letter applies).
• Writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist evidence to the press.
• Testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public.
• Continued membership in a divergent group.
• Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO.
• Failure to handle a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts.
• Being at the hire of anti-Scientology groups or persons.
• Organizing a splinter group to use Scientology data or any part of it to distract people from standard Scientology.
• Organizing splinter groups to diverge from Scientology practices, still calling it Scientology or calling it something else.
• Calling meetings of staffs or field auditors or the public to deliver Scientology into the hands of unauthorized persons or (persons) who will suppress it or alter it or who have no reputation for following standard lines and procedures.
• Infiltrating a Scientology group or organization or staff to stir up discontent or protest at the instigation of hostile forces.
• First degree murder, arson, disintegration of persons or belongings not guilty of suppressive acts.
• Mutiny.
• Seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or "to save the organization from the higher officers of Scientology".
• Engaging in malicious rumor-mongering to destroy the authority or repute of higher officers or the leading names of Scientology or to "safeguard" a position.
• Delivering up the person of a Scientologist without defense or protest to the demands of civil or criminal law.
• Falsifying records that then imperil the liberty or safety of a Scientologist.
• Knowingly giving false testimony to imperil a Scientologist.
• Receiving money, favors or encouragement to suppress Scientology or Scientologists.
• Sexual or sexually perverted conduct contrary to the well-being or good state of mind of a Scientologist in good standing or under the charge of Scientology such as a student, a preclear, a ward or a patient.
• Blackmail of Scientologists or Scientology organizations threatened or accomplished - in which case the crime being used for blackmail purposes becomes fully outside the reach of Ethics and is absolved by the fact of blackmail unless repeated.