Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

Psycopaths make Terror in Scientology

Posted 35 months ago|75 comments|1,461 views
Written by
Psychopathic Meltdown in Scientology Thwarted by David Miscavige

The Church of Scientology had, until recently been infiltrated by psychopaths who had enforced a “reign of terror” against staff, according to Church spokesperson Mr Tommy Davis, and reported in the St Petersberg Times, June 21, 2009.

These same psychopaths have now accused the respected ecclesiastical leader of the Church, Mr David Miscavige, of the very crimes they, themselves, committed.

These former top-level Scientologists accused Mr Miscavige of violently beating Church staff members. The Church has now stated that Mr Miscavige's accusers actually conspired to commit the claimed assaults themselves, thus now exonerating Mr Miscavige.

No secrecy for criminals

The secret Church files on these formerly-respected psychopaths reveal that they had admitted crimes in their confidential confessions to the Church. Once these psychopaths started criticizing the church, the Church had no choice but to reveal their criminal secrets. These developments should warn all critics who turn against the Church that they can not expect to hide behind the 'secrecy' of their confidential Church files.

Accusations

The Church, through spokesman Mr Tommy Davis, stated that the accusers were “real criminal, out-of control, sons of b****es when they were in [the administration of the Church]”.

The half dozen or so accusers had been members of the elite “Sea Org”. Many were removed from command within a few years of their criminality and psychopathology becoming evident. Many, remaining elite Scientologists have confirmed that they knew nothing of the violence allegedly perpetrated by Mr Miscavige, but were aware that his accusers had long been guilty of violence.

Reign of Terror within Scientology.

There was a reign of terror against Scientology staff, but ecclesiastical leader Mr Miscavige was not responsible. Mr Davis revealed that the reign of terror was led by former colleague, Mark “Marty” Rathbun, the long-time Inspector General of the Religious Technology Centre, and whole-track prison warden

Speaking of Mr Rathbun, an angry Mr Davis, told the St Petersburg Times -

“This guy is a f***ing lunatic. And I don't have to explain how or why he became one, or how it was allowable. The fact is is he's saying David Miscavige did what he [Mr Rathbun] did. Not once, not twice, but fifty times to twenty-two people, where the people are still around, and they can attest to it, and there are witnesses to it. And the instances that you're saying that Mr. Miscavige engaged in aren't that way. And you're saying seventy-five to a hundred, but it isn't true. And now I'm getting a little angry. Am I angry at you? Not neccessarily. But I'm G** d**** p***ed at Marty Rathbun. Because he knows that he was the reign of terror, the whole-track prison warden, and the lunatic. Because he admitted to it.”

Speaking of Mr Rathbun's turning against the Church, spokesperson Davis went on to say,

“[Mr Rathbun is] a b*****d and coward and a psychotic. Psychotic. That he would do this to his friends, the people that he worked with. Joe, look at me when I'm talking to you. The people that he worked with. Like us, his friends who trusted him who thought that he had our backs in the clutches when people were trying to destroy us and he does this. He has no credibility. He's a bad man and he's psychotic. And you make sure that you tell him that I said he's psychotic because he is. Only a psychotic would do what he's doing.”

Mike Rinder

Mr Mike Rinder, former Office of Special Affairs chief, and former chief spokesperson for the Church, has now also accused Mr Miscavige and Mr Rathbun of physical assault.

The St Petersburg Times reported that Mr Davis worked with Mike Rinder, and knew him to be a liar. "It was a real problem, Mike's propensity to lie ….Obviously he had an issue with the truth,'' said Mr Davis. The Church said that Mr Rinder, in his confidential files, admitted that he lied 43 times over the years.

Yet, during the time when Mr Rinder was Church spokesperson, the lying Mr Rinder had publicly denied being the victim of assaults by Mr Miscavige, said Mr Davis.

Mr Davis described to the St Petersburg Times many occasions on which the psychopathic coward and Inspector General of Religious Technology Centre, Marty Rathbun attacked the habitual liar and Scientology spokesperson, Mike Rinder.

“The one person who was attacked more than any of them, and more viciously than any of them, by Marty Rathbun, and more frequently, over a longer period of time, than by any of them was Mike Rinder who was slapped, punched, kicked, choked, grabbed by the neck, thrown to floor, and tackled into furniture. [...] In January of 2004 [...] was an incident where inexplicably, out of nowhere - no forewarning - Marty Rathbun leapt onto Mike Rinder, tackled him to the ground, straddled him at the chest, grabbed him at the throat, choked him while banging his head into the floor, screaming at him, asking him a question repeatedly, to the point that he was turning purple, and requiring him to be peeled of off Mike by five grown men”.

Within less than four years from this occasion, both Mr Rinder and Mr Rathbun had been unceremoniously dismissed from command in Scientology. The criminals were no longer running the Church. They had never even assimilated “The Way to Happiness” as taught by the Church founder, L Ron Hubbard.

Mr Miscavige's achievements disprove his participation in beatings.

Mr Miscavige would not have had time to perform the alleged beatings, revealed Mr Davis. As Mr Davis told the St Petersburg Times, apart from many of Scientology's great achievements, Mr Miscavige was not responsible personally for all that went on in Scientology -

“The recurring theme I'm getting here with all of this is 'David [Miscavige] did this, David did that , David did this', and its as if there isn't another single blessed person in all of Scientology, the Sea Org, or Int management, and that's what's really disingenuous here [. . . .]”

“It sort of seems like a picture is being painted here like David Miscavige is this madman who roams around the base throws people in swimming pools, locks them in trailers, beats them unmercifully and that's sort of the Scientology upper level.”

“But that then how does that account for, well here we are in 2009 and there's 80 buildings, 489,000 square feet of renovations, three Orgs that opened up just in the last couple of weeks, a 280,000 square foot renovated Fort Harrison, a 173,000 square foot renovated Oak Cove. And you know one of the largest architectural design firms with 70, with 73 dedicated staff just to Church projects, another 273 architects, or 50 million lectures and 9 million books all produced in-house in the largest in-house digital printing plant in the world, or the largest non governmental anti-drug program, or the largest anti-rights, human rights education program, or the 150,000 volunteer ministers and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and.

“So, if David Miscavige is a nut who is running around beating everybody then he must be able to extend time because clearly, in between beating people, he is doing all the things I described and that's where this story doesn't add up.”
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
35 months ago: Hahahahah. Thanks for pointing out this disparity. LOL
35 months ago: Keep grasping at straws, Scilons. Your leaps of "logic" in this article are even sillier than usual.

The fact is, Scilons, that the djinn is out of the bottle (don't forget to stop IMMEDIATELY and clear that word). Ain't no goin' back. This St. Petersburg Times series will make the 1991 Time Magazine expose seem mellow and easy-going.

Everyone, if you haven't already seen it, go read this hard-hitting series of articles at http://www.truthrundown.org
35 months ago: So, you're admitting that Miscaviage allowed beatings on his upper staff for FOUR YEARS? And that's somehow supposed to be good thing - Miscaviage being complicit in the beatings of his top most lieutenants?

Wow, Tommy. Thanks for admitting to the truth.

Also, very classy for a CHURCH spokesman to use "Goddamn" in a public press release. Very classy.
35 months ago: The keyword here is "confidential," way to go telling the flock that their confessions are fair game if they seek redress from the cult. I'm sure you think that will frighten people, but I'm guessing it will only piss of the exes and cause further attrition among the current membership.

I'm gonna put that lovely threat on a sign for the next protest.
Havok Dryke
Havok Dryke
Canada
35 months ago: You Scilons must really be freaking out, huh? These reports went viral today, and AP has distributed them to MSNBC, Fox, you name it. Your pathetic attempts at damage control and dead agenting only serves to further underline the desperate times the CoS now find themselves in. Keep spewing your drivel, Remington. I find it amusing.

Also,

"It sort of seems like a picture is being painted here like David Miscavige is this madman who roams around the base throws people in swimming pools, locks them in trailers, beats them unmercifully and that's sort of the Scientology upper level.”
That's actually a pretty good description of Scientology's upper management, actually. I'm saving this for use as a signature.
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
35 months ago: Nice pottymouth on that "church" spokesman, eh? The article in the SP Times (heh) brings up some interesting points that the stupid son of a **** proceeded to confirm.
1. Your PC folders are NOT sacrosanct as claimed. Scientology will cull your folders and expose information you thought was confidential. So the statement that auditing sessions are confidential is a lie.

2. Tommy Davis, at the behest of Miscavige, is trying to Dead Agent the execs who are speaking out. Orders have gone out, resulting in posts like this one by Jack. This tactic will fail, because Scientology has a history of lying about their enemies.

I hope all you deluded true believers have some sort of plan for a post-Scientology world, because that day seems to be drawing very, very close.
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
35 months ago: 3. Tommy Davis has admitted, in public, that the abuses we have been hearing about have actually happened, in Miscavige's presence, repeatedly. This is huge, too; an admission that people are beaten in the Sea Org.

This behavior is a true picture of Scientology when the mask slips. All the happy, grinning Scilons in their PR material are a sham. All the nice, friendly glad-handers the cult sends out to schmooze with local politicians and religious leaders, also a sham. A bloody, desperate, insanely abusive environment is the dark thing at the core that Scientologists refuse to believe. It is also the thing Scientology doesn't want the world to know about. Oops, Tommy Davis...you just goofed the floof there!
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago:
If they are psychos Jack, they are surly your psychos. Scientology trained them, Scientology promoted them and Scientology sustained them.

Of course the image of Rathbun calmly stating his position juxtaposed with Davis screaming, cursing and thumping on the table is striking. On the one hand it proves that HIS training didn't work very well. Not only is he unable to maintain his composure but he's illustrating that Organized Scientology simply does not work.

Sorry Jack, you people lost The Game.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: LOL Jack, you are truly a highly skilled troll.

I like the subtle and deadpan way in which you expose and dig at the complete bollocks the organisation calling itself the church of scientology is spouting in this latest episode of embarrassing scandal.

I do believe you even have Terryeo believing that you believe it! Sweet.

Thank you for the Lulz sir, /salute.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
35 months ago: How do psychopaths get to the top of an organization that is supposed to cure insanity? Jack, why do you believe Miscavige? Wouldn't a bit of skepticism be healthy?
flyswatter
flyswatter
Lanham, MD
35 months ago: I believe that "Jack Remington" was one of Hubbard's pen-names when he was writing for the pulps. This blog entry was not written to convince anyone. It was written to raise a statistic -- "column inches of positive press". I think this poor guy (or girl) will be eating rice and beans for a long time.

YOU can LEAVE NOW and have a happy life outside of the Sea Org. You can even go UP the BRIDGE outside the Church!
An Observer
An Observer
Garrettsville, OH
35 months ago: Speaking of Psycopaths, check out bat **** crazy L. Ron Hubbard in his own words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9NYh_VUWwM

Good luck search for Xenu
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
35 months ago: That is an interesting article. I am familiar with the history of Scientology all the way back to its original source, the publication of "Dianetics: The Modern Science Of Mental Health" in 1950, and it is quite interesting that there has literally never been a time when senior executives or influential figures in the world of Scientology were not being denounced as traitors and madmen. Even the very most important Scientologists short of L. Ron Hubbard himself, such as L. Ron Hubbard's eldest son, L. Ron Hubbard Jr. (later known as Ronald DeWolfe) and the senior Flag case supervisor David Mayo and many, many more, have turned out to be Suppressive People. It never ends. Scientology requires constant witch hunts because that is the only way to distract people from the fact that Scientology never delivers what it promises.
An Observer
An Observer
Garrettsville, OH
35 months ago: That's because Scientology is nothing more than a confidence game, you get a few benefits from the trances you are brought into early on through regressive hypnosis and then you spend the rest of your life focusing on all the excuses for why Scientology never delivers on it's promises. Hubbard created imaginary enemies by design, it far easier for a Scientologist to blame external influences for his or her lack of progress than to admit they were conned by Hubbard.
35 months ago: I love infiltration.
35 months ago: So, in effect, what you're saying is that all those people you were previously dismissing as lying about getting ten shades of crap kicked out of them, were in fact telling the truth... Can you say Lawsuit?

Then, we have the admission that top management knew about this via their PC and ethics folders... You are aware that company directors in both the EU and US have gone to prison for far less then this, right?

And my personal favourite: The threat of disclosing the most private and intimate thoughts of those parishoners who decide that not only was scientology not for them, but it hurt them. Say hello to the Data Protection Act in the UK and similar laws in the rest of the EU. Because by this admission, or rather, this out and out threat, you've just set yourself up for being shutdown under those same data protection laws.

Way to "Keep scientology working" ;)
35 months ago: Frederick, you say "How do psychopaths get to the top of an organization that is supposed to cure insanity?"

Not the very 'top', Frederick. Police forces, for example, are at the front line of stamping out crime. Yet, corrupt police are a problem all over the world. The purpose of the police Organization is still a good purpose. Question answered?

No offense intended to Mr Stettner (I enjoyed your article), but I wonder if the alcohol industry might have have a part in keeping this current and, I think, newsworthy Rant out of Google News, in favor of the apparently more newsworthy article "Real Men Don't Use Bottle Openers".
35 months ago: Wait. So you're publicly blackmailing ex-scientologists to keep quiet or else? Including myself?

Even I believe this is crazy, and I've been with crazy for more then twenty years while in Scientology..
35 months ago: The secret Church files on these formerly-respected psychopaths reveal that they had admitted crimes in their confidential confessions to the Church. Once these psychopaths started criticizing the church, the Church had no choice but to reveal their criminal secrets. These developments should warn all critics who turn against the Church that they can not expect to hide behind the 'secrecy' of their confidential Church files.

^ this quote is the part I'm speaking about. Basically saying "If you speak the truth about us anymore, we'll reveal your private secrets that we forced from you in the first place"
35 months ago: also, you have to remember as quoted from L. Ron Hubbard..

"If you cannot find a criminal act from someone, make it up"
35 months ago: ... now that I think about it, this really isn't a rant. More like "public relations" control and slandering people without proof.. This entry should be taken down.
35 months ago: ScientologyLover87, just imagine if Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton started claiming the President had been beating up on them. If the President had documentary proof that they had actually been beating up on each other, don't you think he'd use it?
35 months ago: ^ That's not at all what you're getting at. What you're saying, what you clearly said in what I quoted is that if ex-scientologists continue to speak out, then their personal information will be made public. That is clearly blackmail and violation of federal law.
35 months ago: I shouldn't neglect to mention that Mr Rathbun himself apparently, according to a report in the St Petersburg Times, browbeat hair-raising confessions out of people. "Marty then engaged in a campaign to covertly and systematically take out and undermine any executive or staff who might expose him. He did this through abusing his privilege to act as a security checker. ... He began the out-tech practice of sec checking people with no formal session set up, and brow beating hair-raising confessions out of them.''
35 months ago: All you're doing is attacking people and ignoring what I said. Face it, SCientology got hit by a death blow. Nothing DM, Tommy Davis, you, or anyone else saying or doing can save it.

I'm glad i'm out of scientology and I DARE you to black mail me.
35 months ago: I've endured mental and physical stress while in scientology by my auditor and others. I'm now recieving psychiatric help, if reluctant about it.. but what I've experienced in all my years of scientology.. I will never fully recover from. But I will be damned if those responsible will not face their crimes in a court of law.

Their time is coming soon, Jack. Leave while you can before you're thrown under the bus.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
35 months ago: My question has not been answered Jack, you merely provide a distraction. Care to try again?
35 months ago: "The Sea Org is not a democracy. The members of it agree with a man named L. Ron Hubbard. They abide by his policies . . . and we follow it to the T, to the letter, to the punctuation marks. And if you disagree with that and you don't like it, you don't belong. Then you leave." - Mr Tommy Davis
35 months ago: ^ I tried leaving the first time ten years ago. I was intimidated, discouraged, and blackmailed into staying. Saying that I would never survive on the outside, that I would die and that it would be my fault if scientology got destroyed. I would be hit, I would be taken through countless sec checks.. until I finally gave up and stayed.

35 months ago: So no, it definitely is NOT a democracy. It's more like a fascist enslavement camp.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Of course it's slave labor! Look at Golden Era Productions, it's a cash cow for the cult. They have Hubbard's old lectures burned to CD for pennies, then force the orgs and missions to buy tons of this junk for thousands of dollars. The orgs and missions have to figure out how to sell this rubbish.

What a grand scam! It's all tax free and Sea Org provides the slave labor. It would be beautiful if it were not so sick.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
35 months ago: Remington: Your reply to Frederick doesn't answer his question. Yes, police forces can also suffer from corruption, however, police forces make no claim to possess the technology which cures people of all aberration and makes them super-humanly sane, they just claim to be in the law-enforcement business. There is no logical reason why, if Scientology does what it claims to do, or even does anything remotely like what it claims to do, it would consistently turn out to have corrupt people in senior executive or management positions. Scientology is supposed to have the PTS/SP technology to deal with that. Right?

I am aware of L. Ron Hubbard's bizarre and self-serving fantasies about "suppressive people" who are constantly inflitrating the Church of Scientology in order to sabotage its activities, but it really defies belief that the vast power of Scientology technology, and the vast power of the Operating Thetans who have been produced by that technology, are helpless in the face of suppressive people, and can never detect them until it is too late. This is obviously a concocted piece of paranoia. The reality is that Scientology does not make anyone sane, it drives people crazy, and that is why Scientology executives always turn out to be crazy. You are in the business of craziness.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
35 months ago: L.Ron Hubbard claimed that he tested 270 people over 15 years in the creation of Dianetics and that Dianetics was a pure science, like Physics and Chemistry. He claimed that when he stripped off people's engrams, clearing the people, he found that MAN IS GOOD. This is a dominant theme of his writings.

Now every Scientologist can know that you can be clear, OT and be in the highest rankings of the executive and not be good, but be violent, hurtful and capricious. It really doesn't matter if it is the just the four executives or if Miscavige behaves violently too. The "goodness" that a person might hope to achieve by ridding himself of engrams is just another delusion supplied by cult founder L.Ron Hubbard.

Jack, if you have yet to reach clear, save your money.
35 months ago: LOL. Some amuse with professionally written jokes and get good money for standing in front of people, entertaining. But the convoluted transition from "man is basically good", Frederick, to your conclusion, can only be laughed at.

Either you, and me, and everyone is basically good. Or is not. This is one of those Yes/No/Abort sorts of issues, do you see? People are not good. Or you choose not to confront the issue at all. Or, alternatively, people are good and would always be good, except that some mental issue, some temporary mental issue, stands between them and goodness.

According to Dianetics then, an individual can confront and handle those mental issues that prevent goodness. Very simple really. And you either agree, disagree, or abort out of the issue.

One other thing, apparently there is a common understanding that a person reaches into Scientology, studies, goes Clear, becomes OT, and then is placed in the Church's high leadership. No, that isn't the situation, although that procedure might happen, sometimes.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
35 months ago: Terryeo, Of course all you can do is laugh, since that is your only alternative to actually understanding and dealilng with what is being said.

So, people attain high leadership in the Church without necessarily studying Scientology, going Clear, and becoming OT. This means that the Church could protect itself from all the constant insanity from which it has suffered throughout its existence merely by using its own technology, but it chooses not to do so. And that seems logical to you, right?

And regarding the issue of whether human beings are basically good or basically not good, that is another red herring thrown out by Fearless Leader LRH. If human beings can be said to be basically anything, we are basically biological organisms who are the product of evolution; consequently, we can be either good or bad, depending upon our choices and circumstances. But based upon the theories of Scientology, it should always be possible to de-aberrate your prospective executives and then allow them to manifest their own basic goodness. And this is not what is happening. Scientology labors under a vast weight of contraditions.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Terryeo;

"Either you, and me, and everyone is basically good. Or is not. This is one of those Yes/No/Abort sorts of issues, do you see?"

No I do not see, this is like declaring "people are either deluded or not deluded." Whether people are good or bad is not a yes or no question. It's a qualitative judgment and subjective to boot.

Hubbard was deluded (IMO) in his declaration or he was (more likely)intentionally trying to fool people. For no other reason then, - so people are basically good, good compared to what?
35 months ago: Oh boy. On one hand you see my statement as false. And then you give your opinion of Ron Hubbard. And then you ask me what "good" means. Oh boy.

What does "good" mean, what does "word of choice" mean. But as a discussion, we have not progressed to defining "good" because you have made it clear everyone is deluded, therefore any statement about good or bad doesn't apply. For example "Mankind is basically good" is a delusion, according to you. Mankind is basically bad - same delusion on the same scale, but at the opposite end. Qualities of good and bad are only delusion. Dictionaries are available online, good luck in understanding mankind and in understanding Hubbard's statement.
35 months ago: Well Skeptic, I don't view it as you do. Is it "good" to take a breath and therefore, live another minute? Is it "good" to put food into your mouth and maintain your body for another day? Does "good" include those things that let you live life better? Does "good" include those things that would allow you to live a little better, such as a better job or a nicer housing situation, or having a little more fun in life? It is good to survive, do you see? And things like mad dogs and bullets that interfere with living another day, those things are bad - for the individual.

Taking this a step further, the things that allow your family to live a little better are "good" - for yourself and your family. And for your classmates or workmates, likewise. Good = better survival. Bad = worsened survival.

So we come back to Hubbard's statement. Mankind is basically good . . " reads a part of it. Well, this means that mankind is attempting to survive. And in attempting to survive, recognizes that other people are likewise attempting to survive. If one man contributes to the survival of everyone, they have done a "good" act. Because, to some degree, everyone is happier when surviving better. Bill Gates, for example, contributed to a better survival with his windows operating systems. Those allow us to type these words, communicate better and survive a little better. Good = happier self. Big Good = happier everyone.
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
35 months ago: You're a master of diversion, Terryeo. The topic of the article isn't even in your universe, just all this semantic bull**** meant to divert, distract and block.

Psychopaths in the upper echelon? Of course this is a troll, but it's a good one. Of course David Miscavige is behind the beatings, and reportedly ordered subordinants to follow suit and abuse others down the chain of command.

And if he *were* innocent of beating anyone, he knew about it and allowed it to continue.

So stuff your stupid wordplay and get busy addressing this issue!
35 months ago: Xenubarb, you are as reliable as stench. Where plants grow and wind blows, where life abounds and peace exists, there you begin to issue commands and support lies.
35 months ago: Terryeo: Why did Miscavige allow people who beat their subordinates to stay within management? Why didn't he immediately have them remanded to the police?
35 months ago: Oh, and incidentally... "Where plants grow and wind blows, where life abounds and peace exists, there you begin to issue commands and support lies."

WTF? What the hell does that even mean? You used words, certainly, and they're recognizable as English words, but the sentence you've constructed out of them doesn't make a lick of sense.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
35 months ago: Terryeo, I see that you are willing to discuss the nature of good and evil, but you are not willing to explain why senior Scientology executives so often turn out to be evil, despite the infallible LRH tech that is supposed to solve all problems and cure everything, both for individuals and for organizations. You are evading the issue.

I don't know that survival in itself is either good or evil; it can be either, depending upon what you do with it. Good and evil are social constructs. We try to create a society in which we human beings can work together for the accomplishment of our shared goals, and we consider this to be good; those who sabotage the purposes of society in order to pursue their selfish objectives are considered evil. And that's it in a nutshell. It has nothing to do with anyone being basically good or basically evil. We are what we choose to be. In your case, you have chosen to be a cultist, and that was a bad choice.
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
35 months ago: "Oh, and incidentally... "Where plants grow and wind blows, where life abounds and peace exists, there you begin to issue commands and support lies."

WTF? What the hell does that even mean? You used words, certainly, and they're recognizable as English words, but the sentence you've constructed out of them doesn't make a lick of sense."

LOL...and they pay money to lurn how tew communikate reel gud liek this.
35 months ago: Ahh, skeptic, we are talking. Unfortunately, you mix a discussion of the nature of good and evil in with a request for information. So which is it, my explanation (it would bore you) about Scientology, or a discussion of the nature of good and evil (In your mind, a social construct with little application to real life) ?
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
35 months ago: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Terryeo

Heh. You're famous.
35 months ago: Barb: Here are the preconditions I specified to my evaluation of your previous statement which statement supports lies and issues a command.

Where:
Plants grow,
Wind blows,
Life abounds,
peace exists.

There, is that a bit more clear for you?
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
35 months ago: Nope. Doesn't make a damn bit of sense. BTW, if you think your Dev-T is effective, think again. I'm spreading that SP Times story like crazy, and I just stop in here for the laughs provided by you.

Also, we gonna raid the OT Committee tonight! I'll tell 'em you said hi.
35 months ago: Plants grow - almost everywhere.
Wind blows - almost everywhere.
Life abounds- almost everywhere
peace exists- almost everywhere except where mankind makes war. Or in your case, where you stenchy barb manifests.
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
35 months ago: Insults? Nice churchy thing to do, Terryeo. I mean, if you want to resort to sandbox name calling to round out your incomprehensible "words on a string" sentences, that's fine.

It's so lulzy, especially since you pay moneyz to lern2communicate, while most everyone else does a superb job of it without any "help" from L. Ron Hubbard.

I mean seriously. Do fish swim?
35 months ago: "So which is it, my explanation (it would bore you) about Scientology"

Try us, Terry. You claim to have all the answers, and we want them. To restate the question:

Terryeo: Why did Miscavige allow people who beat their subordinates to stay within management? Why didn't he immediately have them remanded to the police?
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
35 months ago: Terryeo, I know all about Scientology, I do not need to request information from you. I am challenging you to answer a question (which you still haven't answered) not because I don't know the answer, but because I am trying to get you to face reality. This history of the Church of Scientology shows a constant stream of destructive and seemingly insane senior executives who wind up getting expelled and denounced, but Scientology cannot explain why they do not make people sane, as they promise to do, before appointing them as senior executives (or for that matter, junior executives). If you HAVE the technology, why do you get such poor results? And don't lecture me on the evil SPs. Scientology has PTS/SP technology, it has (supposedly) all the answers to everything, therefore it has no excuse for its failures, other than to admit that it actually lied about everything from the beginning.

Do you really believe that the most aberrated people in the universe, the SPs, are continually fooling the most sane people in the universe, the Scientolgoists, and worming their way into senior positions in the Church of Scientology? Who is supposed to be more causative, the sane or the insane? Your theory doesn't work. It is nonsense. Time to face reality.
35 months ago: But all this is really beside the point. What I want to know is: Why did Miscavige allow people who beat their subordinates to stay within management? Why didn't he immediately have them remanded to the police?

Terryeo utterly fails to respond in 3... 2... 1...
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
35 months ago: Terryeo and Jack, I hope this rant receives 10,000 hits. I feel this way because your inability to make much sense will continue to inoculate people against Scientology.

Furthermore, one day almost every Scientologist comes to understand that you don't go up the bridge, you go down it. May that day come soon for both of you.

Have you to ever considered that the #7's on your computers might be stuck down?
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago:
Terryeo;
"For example "Mankind is basically good" is a delusion, according to you. Mankind is basically bad - same delusion on the same scale, but at the opposite end. Qualities of good and bad are only delusion. Dictionaries are available online, good luck in understanding mankind and in understanding Hubbard's statement."

I understand Hubbard's statement quite well thank-you-so-very-much. He was deluded in my humble opinion in making a judgment call on the rest of humanity when he not in a position to do so. Also; he makes statements of opinion as if they are factual and you believe him!

Qualities like good or bad are not delusions, they are subjective, you have to compare humanity with something else after you have defined your scale. Hubberd did neither - he just made a blank statement "mankind is basically good!" Good to what? A head of cattle queuing up in a slaughter house can't possibly think "mankind is good."
35 months ago: "Plants grow - almost everywhere.
Wind blows - almost everywhere.
Life abounds- almost everywhere
peace exists- almost everywhere except where mankind makes war. Or in your case, where you stenchy barb manifests."

Prove it or gtfo.
35 months ago: Anonymous Voice - unfortunately you don't understand the answers available. But, if you will clear your words, you could.

Mecca Anon, indeed Hubbard made statements of opinion. That body of information he created is his opinion. And many have found it useful. Here we were speaking of "good" and "not good" Good = you live until tomorrow. Good = mankind lives tomorrow. Good = you find a way to live a little better, a little longer, a little more comfortably. Good = you find a way to make life better for your friends, also. Good = mankind discovers cheap energy so mankind can live a little better, a little longer. Good = good for you. Good = good for your family, friends, groups, mankind.

Mankind is basically good, because mankind is working toward his own better survival. Good, because he would (mostly) help you instead of squashing you.

If Mankind were mostly bad, he would eradicate his existence. Where bad = harmful and good = survival, mankind is good. Take a look around, how difficult a concept is this?

HeyNoniNoni - get some space, those are lies.

dangerranger - take care of yourself, buddy.

xenubarb - thank you for telling of your reaction to my little rhyme. Because you did, I at last begin to understand how Ron Hubbard wrote Scientology in a manner that prevents the school yard bully from understanding it, while encouraging higher toned (scientology tone level) individuals to reach for it. This rejects idiots who would misuse it, maintains its quality and makes it available to the able, while insuring the school yard bully contributes to its growth. Woot Woot, I love it.
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
35 months ago: I don't recall "telling of my reaction." I told you it was incomprehensible. And Hubbard didn't write in his own inarticulate manner to only reach "high toned beings." He wrote it that way so you dumb chumps would pay money for brainwashing courses until you think you understand it.

Well, have you made any plans for when Miscavige goes to prison and the Scientology empire implodes?

You wanna talk about bullying...how bout the little squirt beating his subordinants, well knowing they wouldn't fight back?

David Miscavige has 'little thetan syndrome.'
35 months ago: "Anonymous Voice - unfortunately you don't understand the answers available. But, if you will clear your words, you could. "

Bull****, Terry. You're afraid. You won't answer the questions because you're afraid of the answers that you'll have to provide because they will challenge and shatter everything the Church of Scientology has taught you.

Try me, you coward.

Answer the questions, if you can. ANY Scientologist answer the questions, if they can.

1. Why did Miscavige allow people who beat their subordinates to stay within management?
2. Why didn't he immediately have them remanded to the police?

According to Jack Remington and Tommy Davis, it isn't Miscavige who delivered the beatings. It was people who reported to him. People he was in charge of. People who he saw daily and who were involved in every aspect of the running of the Church of Scientology.

Either David Miscavige didn't know, in which case as the COB he failed the Church of Scientology as an effective and responsible leader, or he knew and did nothing about it in which case he is just as guilty for allowing it to happen.
35 months ago: No Terryeo, those are not lies, and you know it. Tommy Davis, in defending your cult against allegations of physical abuse, said that Marty Rathbun and other former members of management were the ones who were physically abusive.

Rathbun was in Scientology upper management for *years*. If what Tommy says is true, why didn't Miscavige or anyone else report him to the police?

I'm sorry, but you're sunk. The only logical conclusion is that, at barest minimum, your cult tolerated physically abusive behavior for years and failed to report it to the police. Of course, it's much more likely that the physical abuse is an accepted part of the cult's structure.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: Quote "Either you, and me, and everyone is basically good. Or is not. This is one of those Yes/No/Abort sorts of issues, do you see? People are not good. Or you choose not to confront the issue at all. Or, alternatively, people are good and would always be good, except that some mental issue, some temporary mental issue, stands between them and goodness."

I understand Terryeo that L Ron Hubbard states Man is basically good and that you believe either L Ron Hubbard was right or he is wrong therefore either man is basically good or he isn't.

The statement "man is basically good" though has quite a depth to it which can be discovered by asking why is man good, and there are a lot of reasons why humans are basically good. There are also however a lot of reasons why humans are basically bad. The same is true for individuals as well as the group.

The statement by Hubbard while not entirely wrong is flawed. It is more accurate to say humans are capable of being good. It is not an On/Off/Abort situation and rarely is with questions of philosophy.
35 months ago: You put horse feed before your horse who is angry that he has had to run free and eat grass all his life. And what do you get? Even a simple word like "good" gets misunderstood.

Here, let me put it this way. Would you rather help your fellow man improve his life. Or do you fear if you did, he might become toooooo powerful and you know what he would do to you then?
35 months ago: Anonymous Voice -- you are foolish to accept the word of your sources of information. You are utterly, totally foolish when you believe what they have reported as true and attempt to challenge people to refute your belief.

What you believe is up to you. Amuse me some more.
35 months ago: "Here, let me put it this way. Would you rather help your fellow man improve his life. Or do you fear if you did, he might become toooooo powerful and you know what he would do to you then?"

Terryeo, can you use some of your awesome comm skills and rephrase that in English so it makes sense to us wogs, please?
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: "You put horse feed before your horse who is angry that he has had to run free and eat grass all his life. And what do you get? Even a simple word like "good" gets misunderstood."

You didn't direct this comment as a response to anyone in particular but I shall try to address it anyway.

You suggest that the horse becomes angry at being presented with the feed because up until then he has had to run free but just eat grass, presumably a lessor form of nutrition.

An interesting concept, the horse is prepared to accept loss of freedom for a perceived improvement in diet. Indeed he is angry that he did not have this diet before.

So what you suggest is that you have put before us (the horses) your organisations' teachings (the feed). You believe this is an improvement on what was available to us before (the grass). You believe we are angry because we have not had this available to us before even though we were "free". By implication you're saying that in return for your "feed" we would be ready to surrender our "freedom".

By your analogy we have sniffed (a good way to get to understand what you are considering eating if you're an animal) your feed and have decided that we prefer our grass and our freedom.

Interesting analogy of yours, it actually includes the idea that one should give up freedom of thought in return for the perception of receiving improved nutrition. A concept core to your organisation that I previously thought wasn't referred to so directly. L Ron Hubbard, what a guy. :-)
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: "Even a simple word as "good" gets misunderstood." I disagree, I understand the word "good" very well. You stated:

"Either you, and me, and everyone is basically good. Or is not. This is one of those Yes/No/Abort sorts of issues, do you see? People are not good."

I said your statement "People are basically good" involved very complex concepts which made it unsuitable as a statement, but that didn't mean it was entirely false.

The concepts behind your statement "People are basically good" are complex because the statement is too simplistic. I provided a better statement, that was: "humans are capable of being good".

I was able to do this because I have a very good grasp of the word "good" and all it conveys in all contexts.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: "Here, let me put it this way. Would you rather help your fellow man improve his life. Or do you fear if you did, he might become toooooo powerful and you know what he would do to you then?"

What makes you think I don't help my fellow man? Actually I'm very involved in helping others improve their lives, which in turn is helping me - its quite a nice arrangement that I get a lot of satisfaction from.

So to answer your question, no I don't fear helping my fellow man (or woman) for any reason at all.

It's also quite presumptive to suggest that people who are not directly and actively engaged in helping their fellow man (as happen to be) don't do this because they are afraid of them becoming "toooooo powerful" and somehow ruining their lives.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: "Anonymous Voice -- you are foolish to accept the word of your sources of information. You are utterly, totally foolish when you believe what they have reported as true and attempt to challenge people to refute your belief."

@ Terryeo: Why is Anonymous Voices' acceptance of information from his / her source any less valid than your acceptance of information from yours?

Why do you explicitly trust your organisation? Why should Anonymous Voice trust his/her sources? I don't know is my answer to both questions.

Terryeo, you can answer the first question but you cannot realistically answer the 2nd; you can only rely on your assumptions for the 2nd question.
35 months ago: "Anonymous Voice -- you are foolish to accept the word of your sources of information. You are utterly, totally foolish when you believe what they have reported as true and attempt to challenge people to refute your belief. "

MY SOURCE IS TOMMY DAVIS!!! Thank you, TerryEO, for long confirming, IN WRITING, what I and hundreds of others have long said about Tommy Davis: HE IS A LIAR.

My source that Rinder and Rathbun have been in the employment of the Church of Scientology for years, is Tommy Davis. That they allegedly beat their subordinates for an extended duration of that employment, is according to Tommy Davis.

ERGO, according to YOUR statement: Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun DID NOT beat their subordinates, and that means the claim that it was them and NOT David Miscavige is a LIE!

TerryEO has just called Tommy Davis, the spokesman for the organization known as the Church of Scientology, A LIAR. Spin that, if you can.

Apologies for the delayed reply, I've been traveling on business and those international flights across the Atlantic just leave you disconnected for so long. I bet you know ALL about disconnection, don't you Terry?
35 months ago: very amusing, very.
35 months ago: ^^^^^

very stupid, very.
35 months ago: ^^^^^

very stupid, very.
35 months ago: "very amusing, very."

Not a denial, ergo you implicitly agree with me. Does the Office of Special Affairs know that you are outethics and speaking critical of it?
Louanne
Louanne
Los Angeles, CA
33 months ago: Jack H Remington is a troll, not a scientologist. He utterly fails to trick a real Scientology member.

- L
33 months ago: I totally agree. "Terryeo" is also a fake Scientologist.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.