Let’s all take a minute and appreciate the (evil) marketing brilliance of His COBness. There is no question in my mind that it was not some underline in LRH Book Compilations who came up with this stroke of genius. The book has only been out for 66 years but finally it is 100% On Source, just as LRH intended it in 1950. Where would the planet be without COB’s hard work and dedication to feathering his nest–er, helping mankind progress to greater heights.
50 Million DMSMH to be recycled. Maybe that can be DM’s prison work project and he can turn them all into presto logs as fuel. Or instead of Fuel he could carry them to the top of that volcano and instead of throwing them in he can roll them back down the mountain to eventually become topsoil. I know it is not 50 Million sold but since it is fairly well all fantasy anyhow I let the imagination roll.
Hubbard caused a big commotion with his Dianetics book because he described in detail a great discovery: the state of “clear”. The reader was meant to presume Hubbard was describing obtained results. It turns out there is no ‘clear’ state therefore he made no such discovery. It is a fiction, not a record of research, practice and results as touted.
The book provides the most effortless proof that Hubbard was a liar. Scientologists can say there is a conspiracy to falsify his military records but they can’t deny the Dianetics book. The book is an undeniable and obvious lie. In the real world where knowledge has to prove itself it would be an embarrassment with all references to it erased. But in the “what’s true for me” world of scientology the rigors of critical thinking are trumped by a person’s likes and dislikes and fanciful notions.
Ask any scientologist the actual peer reviewed articles in scientific magazines which prove Hubbards ideas. They don’t exist. That’s why the religion ankle is so useful: COS doesn’t have to prove anything of that.
So, that’s an example of hallway auditing. First time I’ve seen a chain taken to basic. Good one RB! You did omit the examiner but that’s OK, the follow up reg cycle will do.
If we could step outside of our minds, take pause from his critical mode…
Let us ponder…
and focus on Step Two, …that is, WHAT NEXT?
we have established scientology is worse than bad, that it is debilitating, that it actually moves control away from the self. Hubbard learned so well how to pinpoint and take advantage of human vulnerability. The power of suggestion is real thing all too often underestimated, that unconsciousness is left to be the decider in such a large portion of our daily affairs, because the brain is more or less wired that way, to put as much of our thinking into autopilot as possible as we struggle to navigate ourselves into a stronger, healthier, and more contented state of being. So, let’s say step one of Act II of this play would be to impose a new focus on self-awareness. But, for the scientologist that has made it here, that threshold has been crossed. Something was terribly wrong with the system in order for that individual to entertain that crucial, critical thought, the consideration that maybe he should break free, shift his priority away from the “church” and its creed of world salvation, taking the whole sales pitch and, yikes, rejecting it.
Ouch, that’s gotta hurt, I don’t care what Universe you’re from. But, look at the rewards…
Let’s acknowledge what you have learned already.
That the most important thing, perhaps the ONLY thing you really need to believe in is yourself.
If someone comes along to demand you believe in anything other than yourself, a red flag needs to be hoisted up right there, high, so that it is never out of view.
Yet, that one acknowledgement is not enough. Power and strength of mind is an innate quality that had to be there in order for you to have made it here, out, no matter the details of your unique situation. The whole gig was built to ensnare you, isolate you, make you believe your natural human traits were personal flaws and aberrations of the soul, then to amplify those doubts in your mind and pin you as the cause of them… That guy Hubbard, he figured out ALL the angles, to make you believe you are hopelessly lost and ruined, except of course for the miracle of scientology.
So, let’s right away restore your belief in yourself. You deserve it. Look for that evidence (another thing that scientology seeks to DISCOURAGE, at the same time deceiving you into thinking motives are the opposite, UGH!! See? I’m still trapped in that “critical mode”. It is interrupting my forward progress, even now)
Believe in your self.
Mistakes, flaws and even failures are all an essential part of the human experience. Punishments and self-flagellation are certainly NOT the cures for failure; self-awareness is. That is, the power to perceive in yourself what is really going on. That would include a crisp idea about what is going on in the sub-conscious, but really, my take on consciousness is… that it is all about being aware of the decisions being made by you every moment, 1,000’s, each one altering the course of life and whether you come out of it with a sense of fulfillment or disappointment.
It all starts with being aware, and then with what you choose to believe.
Then, there is no underestimating the power and effectiveness of social interaction. Emotions are contagious, good and bad. My take (again) is that we actually perceive good and bad, validity and falseness, through our emotions BEFORE weighing in on the logical support. Reality, man, it is all in your mind. But, this highlights the importance of surrounding yourself as far as possible with positive-oriented people. Whoever it is you DO surround yourself by, it is going to have a profound effect on all aspects of your personal life. This is proven: we are social creatures. We live longer if we are not alone. Just be thankful you are no longer surrounded entirely by scientologists. Now, be keen to who IS interacting. I’d give open access and a back stage pass to anyone who makes you laugh, for instance…
Which brings me to third ingredient, essential element for the newly liberated, and that is gratitude.
It has been said here before.
Your effectiveness in leveraging a positive attitude towards yourself and against the brutality of the world begins with and is… your mindset. By harboring in your heart the element of gratitude, by whatever reason, you give yourself the edge by moving your mindset a positive direction. That which is in motion tends to remain in motion, and…
hey, have a nice day. Yes, I believe you are on your way. Train your mind to look for new possibilities, now that you are not being forced to confront your flaws, and check out the new people that pop into your life.
I’d like to indicate a good indicator,
ha.
1. Self-awareness (concentration)
2. Social interaction
3. The expression of gratitude
…together, moves the fulcrum of mindset to greater leverage possibility towards control and empowerment in the adventure of life. Every moment, everybody, Thanks.
Thank you, Ann. This encourages me, knowing I was heard. I so empathize with the good person facing the uncertainty of breaking free from the cult, knowing the brutal and heartless manipulation he or she has gone through. It is depressing. But, you know, I got through it, got to where I am now… and now I want to share what I have learned from the whole experience. Truth is, I didn’t start learning what I had learned until after I had started coming to this blog…
This place, Mike’s blog, does such a wonderful job of exposing the cult for what it really is.
And that helps the snared individual, providing him with the first tools necessary to figure it out, that the tech does far more to close the mind than to forge a path to personal freedom.
The church puts the blame on the individual, entirely. Threatens that individual by saying he is incapable of surviving without the tech, piles on mis-truth on top of deception and all the tricks we are now so familiar with… But, now… what is there to replace scientology? That terrible void. What can we offer as the new set of tools for survival and personal growth?
Conventional thought has been the idea that success leads to happiness. Recent research proves it is the other way around. If we can accept that as a truth, we can build, by the force of will, a new mindset that will indeed lead to a life of well-being, the context of success.
Mindset.
Moved in the right direction, ability and cognizance and effectiveness in the world all become enhanced.
Scientology puts the blame on you, proclaims itself as the answer. That point must be summarily rejected because doing so, that rejection, allows the mindset to focus of the positive potential of self-will, to take risks wagering ability that increases after the experience of trial and error, and invariably shifts the mind to a point where it has greater and greater leverage in the all-important cycle of turning adversity into potential. Scientology will do everything it knows to keep you from even endeavoring to wander astray from its own teachings. Dare. Scientology says things like “The Why Is Not God”, that the reason is you. It is entirely focused on getting you to believe that you are a seriously, seriously flawed being. It will take hold without your awareness, this compromise to yourself. All that is created to sell their fantasy of “going clear”. All that is keep you from being able to turn away, when turning away is the only way to fulfill your first responsibility to yourself, which is to discover your own identity, on your own terms. The first thing scientology did was to get you to believe that there was nothing to turn towards. Belief, that is the operative word. The mind is its own place.
It is a trap. Both belief and scientology. And a most effective one. I do still shudder when I consider the individual whose only support group is the church of scientology. Hubbard knew your vulnerabilities and your desires far too well…
Encouragement is in order. And that’s what I mean when I say first believe in yourself. That belief is warranted. Just acknowledge the valid reasons for your greatness, beauty and virtue, all that is the miracle of you.
And now we have already summarized the need for expressed gratitude.
Reject any person or entity that tells you YOU are the reason for failure.
This cult will hammer you, do real damage, just for doubting…ANYTHING they say!!?
They will make you feel fear, another of their tools, for harboring doubts. LRH was quite paranoid about that, to highlight another of HIS clinical flaws, that anyone would be critical of him. He did not take it well. It was you, as a scientologist, that has paid the price for that, in spades.
Strive to surround yourself with positive people and you are truly on your way.
Emotions are contagious, and positive thinking does in fact lead to success, accelerates it.
Nurture positive thoughts by searching for and acknowledging, and having acknowledged, all that is within you. The sum total of you is greatness without question, a sort of miracle in itself. This depression, while it appears to be both helpless and hopelessly enduring, is destined, if we survive, to be the thing to ultimately turn, run and hide away… Lean to support groups, take any interaction focusing on the positive, on learning.
-and then HAVE it by expressing gratitude. Here you have the reason for the tradition of giving presents at Christmas time – why does that endure?
Success, it begins by “knowing” this body of consciousness within you, forever yours. That is the miracle of you. And life is like Christmas Day. The Miracle. There are three miracles of the Infinite Universe, otherwise unexplainable (although that shouldn’t stop you from giving it a shot). That third miracle is the greatest, in the sequence of things, but we needed the first two, to provide the theater, the stage, the floor upon which to stand. All this is yours, as long as your heart is still beating.
A new analogy popped into my mind this morning, and I can relate it to today’s topic, so here goes. It’s meant to be at least in part humorous, but at least in part serious.
Accounting is a precise methodology evolved since Cosimo De Medici came up with the idea of double-entry bookkeeping. It takes a few years to learn the mechanics, and a certain alertness and power of differentiation to become good at corporate practice where you are tabulating in numbers the history of billions of transactions, and putting them into their proper accounts so that everything balances. From the auditor’s point of view, learning how to audit is similar, but you are dealing with a huge history of individual transactions the PC has encountered and negotiated (some incorrectly) – billions of them. You learn, as an auditor, over several years, the mechanics, and look for the PC to search for the individual transactions he has engaged in, view them, and put the totals into the proper accounts.
If you look at accounting, it may be easy to read financial statements as published, but not so easy to comprehend the methodology of accounting. Perhaps some of the many profusely disseminated misconceptions about auditing, reflect the same comprehension difficulties. We are very used to accounting – hundreds of years and billions of man-hours of practice. But Dianetic auditing is scarcely 100 years old. It is, nevertheless, a precise methodology developed over the period from the earliest research up to 1965. It does take some study to understand, and even then, some years of practice to be good at it. The attempt is made to explain it in quick summary form, but it’s something like talking to a business about their own books – there are a thousand questions because it is personal. To really understand auditing theory and practice, you have to read it and practice it and see the results for yourself. The same applies in both fields.
This analogy, like all analogies, gets strained if you push it too hard, but accounting rules and regulations change all the time. The distinction to make is that these are minor improvements in the treatment of numbers, and in brief, what to call them, how to label them. These are NOT changes to the discipline of the methodology as practiced. The changes which do occur are, I believe, submitted to the FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) and are reviewed and commented on by **trained practicing professionals who do accounting every day** who actually deal with details and suggest changes which better reflect the history of transactions. Some may be approved by consensus, or modified, or dropped altogether. That would be something like auditors talking and exchanging tips on how to handle tricky situations, how to set up an auditing room, or exchanging references, and senior C/Ses spotting departures from procedures, and clarifying auditors’ understanding. I’ll let some of the financial types who read and post and know a bit more about accounting than I take it from here, if they wish, and let them talk about the accounting of the Co$.
Changing accounting practice, or getting “creative” with the accounts, is a no-no (I am told – I’m not a professional accountant – and I’m not in jail). Changing the established methodology of auditing is also a no-no. All you have to do is listen to the screams and complaints.
The problem I have with your comparison of dianetic auditing to accounting is after one has done the accounting there is something to show for it. When the books are balanced they can be proved to be balanced. Dianetic auditing on the other hand may result in momentary feelings of elation similar to what one experiences a million times in the course of their life but those happy moments of optimism don’t result in any significant transformation of the person. There appears to be no cumulative or significant effect to it.
Scientologists have not distinguished themselves as superior in any way. Quite the contrary. Therefore, instead of comparing dianetic auditing to accounting I prefer to compare it to a Rube Goldberg machine. That’s an extremely complicated and fancy device with lots of knobs and switches but for all its intricacies it doesn’t do much of anything.
“Being distinguished as superior…”
I guess that’s what I have a problem with in some of the things people strive for. Not all people strive to be superior to others as an end goal. When I first got involved in Scientology I never saw that as the goal of Scientology and I covered a lot of the early tech. But over the years that concept was marketed and many people who had no idea what Scientology actually was took it to mean pleasing “Scientology superiors” and to gain the power to dominate others themselves. The Scientology executive who never partook in technical endeavors in Scientology grew and grew in power and of course the dominating was fun for them as a purpose and produced lots of money, the real goal of management.
I’m not validating the tech or Hubbard here but the whole shebang developed a common underlying theme, get rid of anyone who can actually audit and/or follow what is written, they are uncontrollable and let’s knuckle down to punishing those who don’t follow command intention. I saw similar traits in some people (brown-noses) in the army but that mechanism was rather easily handled when conditions got too bad – you simply got rid of the assholes, one way or the other. Never fuck with a veteran (& that goes for a cook, medic and storeman too).
Sheeple is a good term.
The professed goal of scientology was to create Homo Novis. That’s a superior person.
Scientologists as a group have not, for all their fantastic ‘wins’ cognitions and ‘stable gains’, distinguished themselves as a happier, more intelligent demographic of people. If scientology processing worked as claimed scientologists would have a reputation for being uncommonly well-adjusted and creative. They have no such reputation therefore I call into question the ultimate value of those ‘wins’. That’s my point.
Hi Roger, Good to see you.Your comment made me remember my very first day at muster @ Asho F.Having no tech dictionary yet,that first encounter with Ron speak mystified me.A Div 7er took me aside and said,Ann you will be a Homo Novis and you will believe.So yes I feel Ron definitely thought he was creating the new improved human.However it was all bs from the start! And did I ever fall for the bait back then!XO
Hi Ann, I remember morning musters at ASHO f. (I think I missed you by a couple months) Being so idealistic I was eager to prove myself worthy. I had no idea at the time I was being duped by an outfit that was rotten to the core! I saw lying and cheating and dirty tricks constantly and all the while people were quoting sweet-sounding LRH platitudes which made it all seem okay, sort of. Remember how busy and bustling that neighborhood was? It was always like Grand Central Station. Not any more. 🙂
Hi roger, We must have missed each other by a few months!It gets harder for me to remember names,but I do better with faces.I felt so much like you did about Ron and The Greatest Team in this or Any Other Universe in the beginning.We both saw the rot beneath the glitter and we got out of Ron Land.Yeah! I pictured the old neighborhood as you wrote.We did rock and roll in those years.Never a parking space for all on course and auditing out on the loading dock, that was classic! but wherever there was a space @ Temple St it was used.Including that crazy course materials closet that held the SHSBC materials and Class 8 too.That was the time when I was QM and the closet was locked from the inside and a dude on Class 8 absolutely had to finish that night.So I was tasked with getting the door unlocked.Right as if I am handy at picking locks.This dude was ready to throw a fit and in desperation I got a wire coat hanger and managed to jiggle the lock open.The next day I was told how OT I had been to get the student through on time.Now so much older and I hope a little wiser,I believe I used good old common sense.Thise OTs still giving off their invisible wins! ❤️
I Yawnalotsays
Your point is indeed valid. I’ve never liked understanding how superior relates to human classification. I’ve seen far too many “superior” people in my time. I hate snobs and fascists alike, but in the purported world of religion, it’s a round peg in a square hole.
Dianetics is a targeted methodology designed to CONSUME YOUR MIND,
precisely. That summarizes everything you need to know about auditing, The Bridge, and The Church, along with its precepts and its intentions.
Be aware,
especially when somebody refers to the elaborate, multi-faceted doctrine as if it were something else.
Believing in scientology, same as believing “tech”, same as believing in Dianetics,
believing on faith is giving yourself away, handing control of your life to someone else, an idea.
There is no reason to trust a cult; believe what you will.
Dianetics, where DM makes monumental claims
And his tortured think, sure does stink
When the poor sheep haven’t got a brain
Dianetics, day and night with fewer saps to buy
Tryin’ to make a buck while the tech is fucked
Selling yet another piece of bright blue sky
They know they belong to the morgue
And the morgue just keeps breeding borgs
And when they say, yeeow-a-yip-i-o-ee ay!
I’m only sayin’ you’re twisting minds, Dianetics!
Dianetics, oy vey!
I’m intrigued by the economics behind yet another revision of Dianetics. As I’ve mentioned in the past, I worked in prepress at a medium sized printing company many years ago and even with my admittedly limited knowledge of Bridge Publications I fail to see logic behind this. Modern printing is a fairly complex process involving real people with real – read expensive – skill sets. Even with the slave wages they pay staff it still costs real money to print the damn thing as a decent run size – say 50,000 or so – requires offset printing instead of the vastly cheaper digital variety. Throw in paper costs and bindery work and the overall cost per book is considerable. A revised edition of a 60+ year old book can hardly expect stellar sales so why publish it in the first place?
Maybe John Q can make the numbers work but I can’t. Seems to me the only reason DM is pushing yet another version of Dianetics is so the church has something new to sell to the sheeple, certainly not to make money.
well, this org is all set up for publication already, overhead is not marginalized just by putting the presses in motion, and, yes, labor is cheap in scn-gy. So, what the hoot, give the minions something to occupy themselves.
But, you are right, that he, the dictator is crazy to rewrite Dianetics, AND throw out the OEC volumes?
(I still can not believe or understand that)
The tech, by Hubbard’s own boundaries and definition, then no longer exists, and what DM is selling IS NOT TECH. That crap was all there was ever to sell in the first place.
Dear RB,
Thank you very much for your keen creativity. I wonder if there is some involution in store for dm, say when he was using LRH to solve anything to what LRH intended to do.
PART III
UNFAIR PRACTICES
False, misleading or deceptive representation
14. (1) It is an unfair practice for a person to make a false, misleading or deceptive representation.
Examples of false, misleading or deceptive representations
(2) Without limiting the generality of what constitutes a false, misleading or deceptive representation, the following are included as false, misleading or deceptive representations:
1. A representation that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, ingredients, benefits or qualities they do not have.
2. A representation that the person who is to supply the goods or services has sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection the person does not have.
3. A representation that the goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model, if they are not.
4. A representation that the goods are new, or unused, if they are not or are reconditioned or reclaimed, but the reasonable use of goods to enable the person to service, prepare, test and deliver the goods does not result in the goods being deemed to be used for the purposes of this paragraph.
5. A representation that the goods have been used to an extent that is materially different from the fact.
6. A representation that the goods or services are available for a reason that does not exist.
7. A representation that the goods or services have been supplied in accordance with a previous representation, if they have not.
8. A representation that the goods or services or any part of them are available or can be delivered or performed when the person making the representation knows or ought to know they are not available or cannot be delivered or performed.
9. A representation that the goods or services or any part of them will be available or can be delivered or performed by a specified time when the person making the representation knows or ought to know they will not be available or cannot be delivered or performed by the specified time.
10. A representation that a service, part, replacement or repair is needed or advisable, if it is not.
11. A representation that a specific price advantage exists, if it does not.
12. A representation that misrepresents the authority of a salesperson, representative, employee or agent to negotiate the final terms of the agreement.
13. A representation that the transaction involves or does not involve rights, remedies or obligations if the representation is false, misleading or deceptive.
14. A representation using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact or failing to state a material fact if such use or failure deceives or tends to deceive.
15. A representation that misrepresents the purpose or intent of any solicitation of or any communication with a consumer.
16. A representation that misrepresents the purpose of any charge or proposed charge.
17. A representation that misrepresents or exaggerates the benefits that are likely to flow to a consumer if the consumer helps a person obtain new or potential customers.
15. (1) It is an unfair practice to make an unconscionable representation.
(2) Without limiting the generality of what may be taken into account in determining whether a representation is unconscionable, there may be taken into account that the person making the representation or the person’s employer or principal knows or ought to know,
(a) that the consumer is not reasonably able to protect his or her interests because of disability, ignorance, illiteracy, inability to understand the language of an agreement or similar factors;
(b) that the price grossly exceeds the price at which similar goods or services are readily available to like consumers;
(c) that the consumer is unable to receive a substantial benefit from the subject-matter of the representation;
(d) that there is no reasonable probability of payment of the obligation in full by the consumer;
(e) that the consumer transaction is excessively one-sided in favour of someone other than the consumer;
(f) that the terms of the consumer transaction are so adverse to the consumer as to be inequitable;
(g) that a statement of opinion is misleading and the consumer is likely to rely on it to his or her detriment; or
(h) that the consumer is being subjected to undue pressure to enter into a consumer transaction. 2002, c.
30, Sched. A, s. 15 (2).
Renegotiation of price
16. It is an unfair practice for a person to use his, her or its custody or control of a consumer’s goods to pressure the consumer into renegotiating the terms of a consumer transaction.
16. Unfair practices prohibited
17. (1) No person shall engage in an unfair practice.
One act deemed practice
(2) A person who performs one act referred to in section 14, 15 or 16 shall be deemed to be engaging in an unfair practice.
Advertising excepted
(3) It is not an unfair practice for a person, on behalf of another person, to print, publish, distribute, broadcast or telecast a representation that the person accepted in good faith for printing, publishing, distributing, broadcasting or telecasting in the ordinary course of business.
(3). Rescinding agreement
18. (1) Any agreement, whether written, oral or implied, entered into by a consumer after or while a person has engaged in an unfair practice may be rescinded by the consumer and the consumer is entitled to any remedy that is available in law, including damages.
Remedy if rescission not possible
(2) A consumer is entitled to recover the amount by which the consumer’s payment under the agreement exceeds the value that the goods or services have to the consumer or to recover damages, or both, if rescission of the agreement under subsection (1) is not possible,
(a) because the return or restitution of the goods or services is no longer possible; or
(b) because rescission would deprive a third party of a right in the subject-matter of the agreement that the third party has acquired in good faith and for value.
(3) A consumer must give notice within one year after entering into the agreement if,
(a) the consumer seeks to rescind an agreement under subsection (1); or
(b) the consumer seeks recovery under subsection (2), if rescission is not possible.
Form of notice
(4) The consumer may express notice in any way as long as it indicates the intention of the consumer to rescind the agreement or to seek recovery where rescission is not possible and the reasons for so doing and the notice meets any requirements that may be prescribed.
(5) Notice may be delivered by any means.
(6) If notice is delivered other than by personal service, the notice shall be deemed to have been given when sent.
Address
(7) The consumer may send or deliver the notice to the person with whom the consumer contracted at the address set out in the agreement or, if the consumer did not receive a written copy of the agreement or the address of the person was not set out in the agreement, the consumer may send or deliver the notice,
(a) to any address of the person on record with the Government of Ontario or the Government of Canada; or
(b) to an address of the person known by the consumer.
Commencement of an action
(8) If a consumer has delivered notice and has not received a satisfactory response within the prescribed period, the consumer may commence an action.
(9) If a consumer has a right to commence an action under this section, the consumer may commence the action in the Superior Court of Justice.
(10) In the trial of an issue under this section, oral evidence respecting an unfair practice is admissible despite the existence of a written agreement and despite the fact that the evidence pertains to a representation in respect of a term, condition or undertaking that is or is not provided for in the agreement.
Exemplary damages
(11) A court may award exemplary or punitive damages in addition to any other remedy in an action commenced under this section.
Liability
(12) Each person who engaged in an unfair practice is liable jointly and severally with the person who entered into the agreement with the consumer for any amount to which the consumer is entitled under this section.
Limited liability of assignee
(13) If an agreement to which subsection (1) or (2) applies has been assigned or if any right to payment under such an agreement has been assigned, the liability of the person to whom it has been assigned is limited to the amount paid to that person by the consumer.
(14) When a consumer rescinds an agreement under subsection (1), such rescission operates to cancel, as if they never existed,
(a) the agreement;
(b) all related agreements;
(c) all guarantees given in respect of money payable under the agreement;
(d) all security given by the consumer or a guarantor in respect of money payable under the agreement; and
(e) all credit agreements, as defined in Part VII, and other payment instruments, including promissory notes,
(i) extended, arranged or facilitated by the person with whom the consumer reached the agreement, or
(ii) otherwise related to the agreement.
Waiver of notice
(15) If a consumer is required to give notice under this Part in order to obtain a remedy, a court may disregard the requirement to give the notice or any requirement relating to the notice if it is in the interest of justice to do so. 2
Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)
Transition
19. (1) This Part applies to consumer transactions that occur on or after the day this section is proclaimed in force.
Same
(2) The Business Practices Act, as it existed immediately before its repeal by the Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002, continues to apply to consumer transactions that occurred before its repeal.
3 It is an unfair business practice for a supplier to take advantage of a consumer if the supplier knows or can reasonably be expected to know that the consumer is not in a position to protect the consumer’s own interests. If someone takes advantage of someone, it is as if the agreement does not exist.
2. Obtaining of a legal but unconscientious advantage through an unfair transaction, such as in dealings with the ignorant, poor, or weak.
Courts may set aside or refuse to enforce an agreement where the terms are such that no person with free volition or proper advice would have agreed to
Under contract law, a defendant can be liable to a plaintiff for constructive fraud if there was: a false misrepresentation; in reference to a material fact; for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely on such representation; on which the other party did justifiably rely; which resulted in damages or injury; and a fiduciary relationship between the parties.
Bad intent or dishonesty is not a requirement to satisfy constructive fraud.
The elements for actual and constructive fraud are the same with two exceptions: constructive fraud drops the element of scienter–knowledge on the part of the injurer of the representation’s falsity–and adds the element of a fiduciary relationship.
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
When the circumstances show that someone’s actions give that person an unfair advantage over someone else by unfair means (lying or not telling a buyer about defects in a product, for example), the court may decide to treat the situation as if there was actual fraud even if all the technical elements of fraud have not been proven.
Constructive fraud: When someone’s actions or an agreement is so unconscionable, such a rip off, so inequitable, so unbalanced, (lacking in mutual rights, lacking in consumer rights) so unfair, so coerced, so unjust, using trickery or entrapment, lack of full disclosure, lacking in good will and good faith, or contain artifice and wile, or so crooked or lop sided, that even though it is not out right fraud it might as well be fraud.
When a contract or an agreement is so unconscionable, such a rip-off, so inequitable, so unfair, so unjust, that no person in their right mind, that no person who was properly informed or really knew what they were doing would of agreed to it, it is called constructive fraud.
Consent cannot be coerced. Consent cannot be pressured.
Therefore where any contract was made or acquired under coercion, such a contract is not bonafide, not valid. Any contract made without a “meeting of minds”, genuine mutual understanding, good will and good faith is non binding. Such a contract or agreement is as if it does not exist.
If consumer protection laws applied to religion most of them would be in violation. Usually, this sort of nonsense can be hidden under the umbrella of the First Amendment.
Most churches have no evil intention and offer a lot of help, to people and communities.
In fact it is the only real help in the world, where ever they are.
It is the only real bona fide help (honest help) that is available.
The good churches, especially the good bonafide Christian churches are the only thing holding the world together as good as it is.
But unfortunately they are losing ground.
The mass of insanity, madness, corruption, ignorance and stupidity, evil and perversion has become far greater than the mass of their ability to keep the balance of power and control.
Like LRH said, when women begin to compete with men on an equal basis in business and politics, we have a society, a civilization that is on it’s way out.
Are you seriously proposing that view of women is good? I find it very offensive, and frankly ugly (and inconsistent with the idea of thetan/mind/body.
2. Why is the idea or “expressed point” of that article , not true, in application?
Dio
Fox Renardsays
I agree with you Mike and it’s more that normal that men and women are treated equally in a civilized world (and it should be like this in an uncivilized world as well). Now, there’s something that has to be known. The one who worked for men/women equality in the 70’s/80’s did not do it because of their love of equality but they had hidden motives doing it. The goal was to put men and women at work so :
1) The government got double income taxes (men and women)
2) The government could get the children much younger in schools (because Mom and Dad both work) and brainwash them to create tomorrow’s new society of sheeps and followers.
In some way, it’s a destruction of the family cell and it’s done with purpose…
“…and brainwash them to create tomorrow’s new society of sheeps and followers.”
Meaning today’s children are raised and “educated” by the State and not the parents anymore, and the youngest they are, the most you can format them to change their perception of reality..
A lot of groups understand that if you get ahold of children from a young age and indoctrinate them into a way of thinking, they will believe the ideas pushed on them. A young mind is still forming, and they tend to accept and follow what they are taught.
I read a book from a girl raised in Iran, and she related how the schoolchildren were taught incorrect versions of factual historical events (even the outcomes of wars) and made to chant ‘death to America’ for 5 minutes every morning before classes began. So they were raised with a hatred of a country they actually knew nothing about.
In North Korea, where the access to the outside world is severely limited, the children are raised to believe that their country is the best, and their leader Kim Jong-un is like a god, despite the totalitarian government, abuses from authorities, lack of proper medical treatments and famine. Stories told by North Koreans who have escaped (and they do have to actually escape, citizens are not allowed to freely leave the country) talk about how shocked they were to see the outside world is nothing like they were told, and how much freer everyone is.
Many religious or quasi-religious groups indoctrinate the children from a young age… Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia make it illegal to disagree with the religion or even to speak an opinion against it – a young man named Hamza Kashgari was arrested and jailed for posting that he didn’t understand or agree with the Prophet Muhammed, which is a crime punishable by death. His story was in the news not because of this, which is common, people are executed there every year for simply speaking out, but because he is one of the very few to escape a death sentence and be released.
Religions habitually indoctrinate young children – many strong believers say they ‘raise children up in the faith’ or in other words influence their minds before they are capable of rational thought. Ex-Jehovah’s witnesses talk about how they were taught things as a child that they later disagreed with, but had accepted all their lives as truth. FLDS members report the same thing, how they heard certain teachings from a very young age and as everyone around them accepted these things, so did they. Later they were surprised to find that most people do not live polygamously or marry their young daughters to 60 year old men as their sixth wife or something similar.
Scientology tries to teach children their methods from a young age, and their current partners the N.O.I. teach children to hate white people (calling them ‘the devil’) from a young age, it’s very sad when children are taught to hate someone on the basis of a skin color, or because their ‘group’ is different or believes something different than the ‘group’ the child is in. (Please do a search on these terms for yourself, if you don’t believe me, I am in no way a racist, this is the truth of the Nation of Islam teachings).
The stories posted here and on other sites from adults who were raised in Scientology or another group that influences the mind, who at some point in their lives suddenly came to an understanding that what they were taught is not really what they believe – those stories are so amazing to read, so heartwarming, when a person talks about how they came to a realization that they didn’t actually believe what was pushed on them from an early age, and how they in fact, are able to now formulate their own opinions. It’s beautiful to see when a person’s mind is free and they are able to think for themself.
As far as the original poster’s assertion about U.S. schools wanting to get ahold of children earlier, to indoctrinate them: I think that compared to other countries like those I’ve mentioned above, or other groups, I tend to think it’s not really a motivation for the US. This is because U.S. public schools have standards that must be met, including a separation of church and state, and we don’t really have ethics studies, social sciences, etc. anymore, that would push a way of thought on children, especially not in the lower grades, and the educational materials are openly available to be viewed and commented on by parents, educators, and the general public. The U.S. also allows education outside of the public school system in the form of: private schools, alternative schools, religious/church schools, at-home education and online learning, i.e. ‘home schooling’ – so there isn’t one uniformed standard of learning required for young children here, there is a wide variety of schooling available. We are not a “brainwashed nation” like North Korea.
hgc10says
Just off the top of my head, who provides help:
Hospitals
Farmers markets
Road workers filling in potholes
Animal shelters
Battered women’s shelters
The constabulary
Nurses
Dialysis centers
The DMV (I know, it sounds like a stretch)
Civil engineers
Sanitation engineers
The water treatment plant
Landscapers
Candy stripers
Strippers
And gee, the list goes on and on.
Oh, did you mean the kind of help that Tom Cruise meant about a car accident? The kind of help where you congratulate yourself for doing nothing of particular value except for the value of the money flowing to fund your “help.” I’ll admit, churches could go on my list too. They offer some people real solace in their theistic fantasies and even more people a community of friends. But that doesn’t apply to any church of Scientology that I know of.
Is that right Dio..? Is that what Hubbard wrote and can you reference this please? And do you truly share those misogynistic views? Yes, pretty repugnant if so. But good to know. And I have to take you up on your apparent view that the only available honest bona fide or real help is the exclusive domain of churches, as you appear to allude to. Care to explain that? Do you not see what an insult that is to every other decent person who happens to have a different faith outside of Christianity? Or even no faith.
“When women begin to compete with men on an equal basis in business and politics, we have a society, a civilization that is on it’s way out.” Guess Who
Why in the world do you insist on quoting a man so low on the Tone Scale? “Those are very true words.” Says who? You? Take a look at the cultures that currently disallow women from competing with men. You know, countries where women have to stay in their place. Those societies are rather nightmarish.
If you think we are close to civilization being “on its way out” then join the rest of humanity who has, since Sodom and Gomorrah, felt civilization was on its way out. The vast majority of the world is getting on quite splendidly, thank you.
Thank you RogerHornaday, Mike Rinder and anyone else who was sufficiently taken aback by Dio’s comments disparaging women to reply. I thought I’d hold back a bit from replying to Dio’s misogynistic comments myself this time, to see what others thought, and am very happy and thankful to see men here standing up for women.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is an agency of the United Nations concerned with international health, and is a recognized authority. For many years now, this agency has compiled detailed information on issues of health and gender worldwide, and have concluded that in societies where men and women are afforded equal opportunities to live, work, be educated, and participate in society, that those societies as a whole are better for everyone: men, women and children; the societies are healthier, more prosperous, have happier people and a better overall standard of living, and it is directly linked to affording equal rights to all.
Dio can quote Hubbard, and his singular opinion, or decide to listen to the World Health Organization, who provide decades of research by many many people, including doctors, scientists, and economic entities, in many nations, to reach their conclusions.
Many other organizations not affiliated to the WHO or United Nations have independently reported similar findings, here is a Canadian agency for example:
“Increasing gender equality improves economic and social conditions for everyone”
So in conclusion, there are an overwhelming number of agencies reporting and studies showing that in societies where women are allowed equal opportunities to participate, as a result, those societies are better for everyone.
Or Dio can ignore all the findings and choose to quote Hubbard instead. lol.
My viewpoint, nor opinion Hubbard’s dissertation, is not misogynistic the least bit. It is for the love of the true woman, and for the love humanity, for the love of civilization, for the preservation of civilization.
T.J. Your quote: Dio is only concerned with men’s rights in society,
Nothing is further from the truth.
You made up a lie and then accused me of it.
That is certainly a form of insanity. You clearly need to be apprehended and institutionalized to protect public safety asap.
I never said or implied anything about men’s rights. I have minimal use for rights.
I focus on intelligent, responsible thinking, talking and actions.
Be sure your brain is in gear before engaging mouth.
A major cause of all the degeneration of civilization is caused by exercising liberty, freedoms and rights without responsibility.
All your writing and links are perverted humanistic BS, written by politically correct people who get their counsel from snakes and fools. The same calibre of people as was Nero, who according to history was playing the fiddle, while Rome burned.
Civilization is degenerating and destroying itself at an increasingly alarming rate,
while a certain group of militant psychotic women argue for rights.
These are not real women, though. They are incompetent as true women, or to bo aberrated in some way to be qualified as true women, so they become militant psychopaths and grow testicles which produce lots of testosterone, and they compete with men in their domain.
There was a least one intelligent, sensible, sane, mentally competent woman in 1871.
What she so wisely wrote in 1871 has clearly come to pass.
Thoughts on female suffrage and in vindication of woman’s true rights
“We acknowledge no inferiority to men. We claim to have no less ability to perform the duty God has imposed upon us, than they [men] have to perform those imposed upon them. We believe that God has wisely and well adapted each sex to the proper performance of the duties of each. We believe our trusts to be as important and sacred as any that exist.
It is our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons who represent us at the ballot-box. Our fathers and husbands love us. Our sons are what we make them. We are content that they represent us in the corn-field, the battle-field and the ballot-box, and we them in the school-room, at the fireside, and at the cradle; believing our representation, even at the ballot-box, to be thus more full and impartial that it could possibly be were all women allowed to vote.”
“We hold that the new status will prove to be the worst kind of communism. The relations between the sexes, so carefully guarded by religion and by parents, by law and by society, will become common and therefore corrupt. The family, the foundation of the State, will disappear. The mothers, sisters and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more and the female gender will vanish into epicene. “
epicene: 1.having characteristics of both sexes or no characteristics of either sex; of indeterminate sex.
Man woman quality is equal to a dead battery, is equal to the end of humanity, the end of civilization.
The more women do men’s work, the more defeminate/masculine they become. The more they become shemales.
An outstanding example is Meygan Kelly, she fought hard to not only compete with men in their domain, but to be several times better than the men she was working with. She grew huge testicles which pump huge amounts of testosterone and now she looks like a big ugly dick: Take a look:
The women who compete with men in their domain, produce more testosterone, which aberrates the chemistry between men and women and increasingly causes causes erectile dysfunction and psychosis in men, and the break down of marriages, families and homes.
This increases psychosis in children, of which many become terrorists, mad men, mad women, and mass murderers and other types of criminals which is causing the destruction of civilization (the armageddon and the apocalypse). All those terrorists and mass murderers are the products of failure on the homefront of one kind or another.
Only insane, incompetent, negligent, aberrated women can “cause” the destruction the world. Men will never ’cause” the destruction of the world. Men will go mad and secondarily cause war to destroy women indirectly. But it is not first cause.
In vain we build a world if we do not preserve the sanctity of the home front.
This is most likely your last post here. I only include it for the record so that people understand why I am inclined to make you the first person I officially block on this blog.
Your rant is disgusting.
If this is all you have to discuss why are you apparently afraid to use your real name? You certainly pose no threat to scientology/OSA/Ethics Officers. So what are you afraid of?
Your horrible rants against women and weird theories, are sick. Your response to TJ is completely out of line. Your hallucinations about Megyn Kelly are simply bizarre (remember, I have seen her in person). You are a disgrace.
Bravo Mike. You’ve shown remarkable tolerance in the past in allowing some of the more outrageous comments through but in this case I’d say you’ve had no choice. Rarely have I felt so reviled by someone’s views or comments – it’s not the kind of thing I come here to follow – so I applaud you in what must have been a rather reluctant milestone.
gato rojosays
The original Dianetics book was written for one specific reason…at least what Hubbard said at the time. It was to get the materials together quickly for the volumes of people writing in and coming by, inquiring how to do it so they could start auditing and finding someone to audit them. It had its own purpose and this whole time, with all these “revisions,” valid or not, never even needed to be messed with.
Why not collect up all the other stuff and do an accompanying volume of other discovered material? And keep changing THAT one around if you wanted to! The ambitious projects to continually alter the original books, then alter the altered ones, (just to pull more money out of people) just blows my mind.
This latest RB strip may be more revealing than intended. It presents a very realistic scenario where a staffer would actually put the ethics wheels in motion for the sake of one measly book sale. Getting expelled for not buying a DN book would be like getting life imprisonment for littering. Even the most insane police state wouldn’t bother with that kind of triviality. The COS would and does.
You just can’t make this stuff up. I got chills at the evil that is not stated out loud… “bring in your old book and you’ll get 50% off this book…” What is not said but is implied is to bring in your old book so we can burn it. That way no one can go back and compare these “new and improved versions” to the original that LRH wrote and did proof read and did approve before they were printed. If all the earlier versions are gone, then they have successfully re-written history and the ‘scripture’ of the ‘church.’ Any time I hear of book burning I get a bad feeling and it reminds me of Nazi Germany and also “1984” where Big Brother re wrote everything to fit the propaganda he was putting out. And then the person uses extortion…. buy it or I’ll write a KR on you and you’ll spend tons of money in Sec Checks. This sounds too horrible to actually be done, but believe me, they do it every day and think nothing of it. Staff have become so used to being ruled by force, intimidation, threats, that they in turn do it to public and think nothing of it.
My first reaction was annoyance, that anyone would change a book and claim it is now “what the author intended”. Where is the proof that the author wanted the book this new way instead of how it was when originally published? L Ron Hubbard was alive when his book was published, did anyone ever hear him say there were things he meant to put in the book but didn’t? Or things he wanted to delete? He’s no longer here to speak for himself and no one should be allowed to change his book without his consent and approval.
Dianetics was published in 1950. LRH was alive for 36 years after the books publication (he died in 1986) and if he wanted to put something else in the book in all that time, he would have. So leave his book as it is.
Should someone change Shakespeare and decide to add stuff or delete stuff, then claim that now it is what the author really intended? Or the works of Jane Austin? So let’s change George Orwell’s books or Leo Tolstoy or Walt Whitman and just claim “now it’s how they really intended it to be”. It’s so wrong.
Also, why do they make people return their original book? So it can be destroyed, so no one can tell what was changed? The very first thing I would do, is compare the new book to the older one to see what changed – what did they add? What did they delete? No way would I give back my original book, because I want to read the book that the author L Ron Hubbard approved when it was published, not what David Miscavige has now changed it to say.
Good point. Time for an edit: “Insanity is following command intention (aka COB) to the point where your spine collapses and your brain turns into corn mush, expecting to make it to full OT.”
Right on on everything you say TJ and Regraded Being. “Should someone change Shakespeare and decide to add stuff or delete stuff, then claim that now it is what the author really intended? Or the works of Jane Austin? So let’s change George Orwell’s books or Leo Tolstoy or Walt Whitman and just claim “now it’s how they really intended it to be”. It’s so wrong. “
DM should make a stab at correcting the Bible as it’s the most popular book in the world. Oh, wait, didn’t LRH say Christ was an implant? Hey, that’s the ticket! Dave could clear up the confusion once and for all.
Thanks Cindy! I’m glad you agree with me. It just seems unfair to change what L Ron Hubbard wrote without obtaining his consent and agreement, which he is not able to give.
Also, a published work should stand as it was written, as it is already recorded in history. LRH said what he said, no one should try to change his words.
If David Miscavige feels that what LRH wrote is no longer relevant, or applicable to Scientology, maybe he can write a new book outlining the procedures he wants to use now. But he shouldn’t change what LRH wrote.
Hi Cre8tivewmn, Thank you for your comment.I thought the same and Mike R has a great touch with his comments.It seems to me there is alot of nostalgic quotes about and from Ron while at the same time the other hand of dm is revising re-doing re-issuing anything he can to continue to sell his brand.The sheeple must be sheep walking to not see the fallacy in that viewpoint.There is no reason to re-do DMSMH.It was not particularly stellar reading when it came out,but boy did that stupid volcano hook me big time into The Sea Org! Lol XOOld Ron is trted out on a regular basis,creepy!
Good Old Ed Burtram had 12 original copies of Djanetic’s personally signed by LRH
The SF Org worked day and night to take them away from him.
ED put up a fight to keep them that was worthy of a waterfront brawl.
These sheep believe everything DM spews. Apparently, their source and founder was an idiot and published Dianetics and all of his other books without ever reading them after publishing. DM saved the day by revising them with “lost content” and of course adding thumb tabs. Now they are what LRH intended!
Purely a scam to get some books sold. No normal, public person is buying any of that Scientology rubbish anymore and they have to force their flock to buy it so they can have at least some book sales stats.
I just threw away thousands of dollars worth of unused, unwrapped lectures and books that my 24 year old son was coerced to go into huge debt to buy. The dump-hauling company is coming this morning. He left them with us and is now disconnected from us. We were thinking of burning them but didn’t want to pollute the air and there was no way I was going to donate them to a place where someone may accidently read that crap.
I’m so sorry to hear about your son disconnecting from you 🙁 Let’s hope that won’t last long. I hope he comes to his senses very very soon and gets back in contact with you. A parent-child bond should not be broken, it’s heartbreaking. hang in there and keep the faith that you will be reunited. sending best wishes… love, T.J.
“So great has been the demand that for a limited time we’re giving it to you for half price” What BS, if there was such demand that is exactly what they wouldn’t do. Just read the exact opposite and you’ll have the truth. “The demand for this book is non-existent, so would you please please pretty prett please with sugar on stats buy a copy, I’ll give it to you for half price even”
Daniel: You heard me sweetheart. Oh, and move away from the door before I kick your ass so hard you’ll be standing for the next three months at mealtimes chowing down on your rice and beans. Capisce?
The best reason for buying the book is: insatiable avariciousness of the COB. (Or when enough is never enough) An example from wogdom: Imelda Marcos and her shoes.
I never got past the first chapter of DMSMH. Actually, I was never able to FINISH the first chapter. Such excreable writing and mishmash of words. Though I got a lot out of scn personally, virtually none of it came from Hubbard’s books. This one was the worst. And lord only knows how Miscavige has figured out how to screw it up worse, but I’m sure he managed.
Ditto. It was one of the most poorly written books I’ve ever encountered. I thought that he must have been on heavy meds when he wrote it. Kinda ironic.
Once, on coming out of the course room in Joburg, I was cornered by the ED and chief reg Albert de Beer, and marched to his office where I was surrounded by no less than four people, including my opinion leaders (I can no longer call them friends, but did look up to them at that time). There I was brow beaten to buy some shit that I cannot remember (does it actually matter anyway – it’s always the money that matters). I hadn’t yet got onto OT7 so had no problem saying no, which I did repeatedly. You know how they operate – establishing consecutive points of agreement with you that climb up to a higher level of agreement until one supposedly would agree with anything they say. Well I knew that tactic by now, and duly agreed with everything they said until it got to the bottom line, when I said No! I was perfectly aware how stupid I sounded, agreeing to everything and still saying no. Did I care? Eventually, the conversation reached it’s inevitable conclusion when Albert told me “You’re full of shit!” Will that be all? I enquired.
To this day, I get a deep sense of satisfaction recalling that reg cycle.
I did a round like that back in the early nineties at Flog. Charmaine Rogers and Mitch Talevi had me in a locked room at the FH and it went something like “either you will donate or we will be sleeping here!”
I was in a chair and it went something like “well you best turn out the lights!” They were pissed and mentioned an aside about J&Ding.
Good one RB. Guess we should not feel too sorry for the still-ins. They are or have become cowards.
Or what else do you call someone who sees what they are told to see?
Cowards sounds about right. I got the feeling that they are weeding out the courageous ones since they can’t be subjected to command intention, and keeping the ones that are willing to be robots. Of course, they string you along until your broke first.
“How could I bring you my old edition of Dianetics if you’re blocking the door?”. Seriously, that would’ve been my question. Then the moment I was let out, I’d calmly walk out the door never to return.
Won’t deny that would be creepy behaviour but…so what? She’d follow me home. She might even bring along a second person for back up. The fact is that you are no longer trapped on Scientology property. You are in a public space. You can make calls (phone calls, call out to someone on the street). You can make a scene. You can run away. Not sure how easy this would be in downtown Clearwater with Scientology’s dominance in the area but for everywhere else, I’d think it’s a good gamble. The idea is to get outside and show public resistance to your cult “minders”. Let everyone around you know that something wrong is happening. Scientology doesn’t like garnering negative attention. It doesn’t want their secret, evil deeds to be witnessed by others. You, on the other hand, would want to create that dilemma for the cult.
Let’s all take a minute and appreciate the (evil) marketing brilliance of His COBness. There is no question in my mind that it was not some underline in LRH Book Compilations who came up with this stroke of genius. The book has only been out for 66 years but finally it is 100% On Source, just as LRH intended it in 1950. Where would the planet be without COB’s hard work and dedication to feathering his nest–er, helping mankind progress to greater heights.
50 Million DMSMH to be recycled. Maybe that can be DM’s prison work project and he can turn them all into presto logs as fuel. Or instead of Fuel he could carry them to the top of that volcano and instead of throwing them in he can roll them back down the mountain to eventually become topsoil. I know it is not 50 Million sold but since it is fairly well all fantasy anyhow I let the imagination roll.
Does anyone know how many times DMSMH has been revised? I tried to google it but no tally came up.
– that sounds like trying to un-scramble an egg.
Hubbard caused a big commotion with his Dianetics book because he described in detail a great discovery: the state of “clear”. The reader was meant to presume Hubbard was describing obtained results. It turns out there is no ‘clear’ state therefore he made no such discovery. It is a fiction, not a record of research, practice and results as touted.
The book provides the most effortless proof that Hubbard was a liar. Scientologists can say there is a conspiracy to falsify his military records but they can’t deny the Dianetics book. The book is an undeniable and obvious lie. In the real world where knowledge has to prove itself it would be an embarrassment with all references to it erased. But in the “what’s true for me” world of scientology the rigors of critical thinking are trumped by a person’s likes and dislikes and fanciful notions.
Ask any scientologist the actual peer reviewed articles in scientific magazines which prove Hubbards ideas. They don’t exist. That’s why the religion ankle is so useful: COS doesn’t have to prove anything of that.
So, that’s an example of hallway auditing. First time I’ve seen a chain taken to basic. Good one RB! You did omit the examiner but that’s OK, the follow up reg cycle will do.
If we could step outside of our minds, take pause from his critical mode…
Let us ponder…
and focus on Step Two, …that is, WHAT NEXT?
we have established scientology is worse than bad, that it is debilitating, that it actually moves control away from the self. Hubbard learned so well how to pinpoint and take advantage of human vulnerability. The power of suggestion is real thing all too often underestimated, that unconsciousness is left to be the decider in such a large portion of our daily affairs, because the brain is more or less wired that way, to put as much of our thinking into autopilot as possible as we struggle to navigate ourselves into a stronger, healthier, and more contented state of being. So, let’s say step one of Act II of this play would be to impose a new focus on self-awareness. But, for the scientologist that has made it here, that threshold has been crossed. Something was terribly wrong with the system in order for that individual to entertain that crucial, critical thought, the consideration that maybe he should break free, shift his priority away from the “church” and its creed of world salvation, taking the whole sales pitch and, yikes, rejecting it.
Ouch, that’s gotta hurt, I don’t care what Universe you’re from. But, look at the rewards…
Let’s acknowledge what you have learned already.
That the most important thing, perhaps the ONLY thing you really need to believe in is yourself.
If someone comes along to demand you believe in anything other than yourself, a red flag needs to be hoisted up right there, high, so that it is never out of view.
Yet, that one acknowledgement is not enough. Power and strength of mind is an innate quality that had to be there in order for you to have made it here, out, no matter the details of your unique situation. The whole gig was built to ensnare you, isolate you, make you believe your natural human traits were personal flaws and aberrations of the soul, then to amplify those doubts in your mind and pin you as the cause of them… That guy Hubbard, he figured out ALL the angles, to make you believe you are hopelessly lost and ruined, except of course for the miracle of scientology.
So, let’s right away restore your belief in yourself. You deserve it. Look for that evidence (another thing that scientology seeks to DISCOURAGE, at the same time deceiving you into thinking motives are the opposite, UGH!! See? I’m still trapped in that “critical mode”. It is interrupting my forward progress, even now)
Believe in your self.
Mistakes, flaws and even failures are all an essential part of the human experience. Punishments and self-flagellation are certainly NOT the cures for failure; self-awareness is. That is, the power to perceive in yourself what is really going on. That would include a crisp idea about what is going on in the sub-conscious, but really, my take on consciousness is… that it is all about being aware of the decisions being made by you every moment, 1,000’s, each one altering the course of life and whether you come out of it with a sense of fulfillment or disappointment.
It all starts with being aware, and then with what you choose to believe.
Then, there is no underestimating the power and effectiveness of social interaction. Emotions are contagious, good and bad. My take (again) is that we actually perceive good and bad, validity and falseness, through our emotions BEFORE weighing in on the logical support. Reality, man, it is all in your mind. But, this highlights the importance of surrounding yourself as far as possible with positive-oriented people. Whoever it is you DO surround yourself by, it is going to have a profound effect on all aspects of your personal life. This is proven: we are social creatures. We live longer if we are not alone. Just be thankful you are no longer surrounded entirely by scientologists. Now, be keen to who IS interacting. I’d give open access and a back stage pass to anyone who makes you laugh, for instance…
Which brings me to third ingredient, essential element for the newly liberated, and that is gratitude.
It has been said here before.
Your effectiveness in leveraging a positive attitude towards yourself and against the brutality of the world begins with and is… your mindset. By harboring in your heart the element of gratitude, by whatever reason, you give yourself the edge by moving your mindset a positive direction. That which is in motion tends to remain in motion, and…
hey, have a nice day. Yes, I believe you are on your way. Train your mind to look for new possibilities, now that you are not being forced to confront your flaws, and check out the new people that pop into your life.
I’d like to indicate a good indicator,
ha.
1. Self-awareness (concentration)
2. Social interaction
3. The expression of gratitude
…together, moves the fulcrum of mindset to greater leverage possibility towards control and empowerment in the adventure of life. Every moment, everybody, Thanks.
Hi blue moon, Thank you,you pulled out all the stops with your sensitive and positive comment.Very perceptive and I archived it.?
Thank you, Ann. This encourages me, knowing I was heard. I so empathize with the good person facing the uncertainty of breaking free from the cult, knowing the brutal and heartless manipulation he or she has gone through. It is depressing. But, you know, I got through it, got to where I am now… and now I want to share what I have learned from the whole experience. Truth is, I didn’t start learning what I had learned until after I had started coming to this blog…
This place, Mike’s blog, does such a wonderful job of exposing the cult for what it really is.
And that helps the snared individual, providing him with the first tools necessary to figure it out, that the tech does far more to close the mind than to forge a path to personal freedom.
The church puts the blame on the individual, entirely. Threatens that individual by saying he is incapable of surviving without the tech, piles on mis-truth on top of deception and all the tricks we are now so familiar with… But, now… what is there to replace scientology? That terrible void. What can we offer as the new set of tools for survival and personal growth?
Conventional thought has been the idea that success leads to happiness. Recent research proves it is the other way around. If we can accept that as a truth, we can build, by the force of will, a new mindset that will indeed lead to a life of well-being, the context of success.
Mindset.
Moved in the right direction, ability and cognizance and effectiveness in the world all become enhanced.
Scientology puts the blame on you, proclaims itself as the answer. That point must be summarily rejected because doing so, that rejection, allows the mindset to focus of the positive potential of self-will, to take risks wagering ability that increases after the experience of trial and error, and invariably shifts the mind to a point where it has greater and greater leverage in the all-important cycle of turning adversity into potential. Scientology will do everything it knows to keep you from even endeavoring to wander astray from its own teachings. Dare. Scientology says things like “The Why Is Not God”, that the reason is you. It is entirely focused on getting you to believe that you are a seriously, seriously flawed being. It will take hold without your awareness, this compromise to yourself. All that is created to sell their fantasy of “going clear”. All that is keep you from being able to turn away, when turning away is the only way to fulfill your first responsibility to yourself, which is to discover your own identity, on your own terms. The first thing scientology did was to get you to believe that there was nothing to turn towards. Belief, that is the operative word. The mind is its own place.
It is a trap. Both belief and scientology. And a most effective one. I do still shudder when I consider the individual whose only support group is the church of scientology. Hubbard knew your vulnerabilities and your desires far too well…
Encouragement is in order. And that’s what I mean when I say first believe in yourself. That belief is warranted. Just acknowledge the valid reasons for your greatness, beauty and virtue, all that is the miracle of you.
And now we have already summarized the need for expressed gratitude.
Reject any person or entity that tells you YOU are the reason for failure.
This cult will hammer you, do real damage, just for doubting…ANYTHING they say!!?
They will make you feel fear, another of their tools, for harboring doubts. LRH was quite paranoid about that, to highlight another of HIS clinical flaws, that anyone would be critical of him. He did not take it well. It was you, as a scientologist, that has paid the price for that, in spades.
Strive to surround yourself with positive people and you are truly on your way.
Emotions are contagious, and positive thinking does in fact lead to success, accelerates it.
Nurture positive thoughts by searching for and acknowledging, and having acknowledged, all that is within you. The sum total of you is greatness without question, a sort of miracle in itself. This depression, while it appears to be both helpless and hopelessly enduring, is destined, if we survive, to be the thing to ultimately turn, run and hide away… Lean to support groups, take any interaction focusing on the positive, on learning.
-and then HAVE it by expressing gratitude. Here you have the reason for the tradition of giving presents at Christmas time – why does that endure?
Success, it begins by “knowing” this body of consciousness within you, forever yours. That is the miracle of you. And life is like Christmas Day. The Miracle. There are three miracles of the Infinite Universe, otherwise unexplainable (although that shouldn’t stop you from giving it a shot). That third miracle is the greatest, in the sequence of things, but we needed the first two, to provide the theater, the stage, the floor upon which to stand. All this is yours, as long as your heart is still beating.
Creation
Life
Consciousness
“Sec checked for being right? To Hell with you and to hell with COB!”
A new analogy popped into my mind this morning, and I can relate it to today’s topic, so here goes. It’s meant to be at least in part humorous, but at least in part serious.
Accounting is a precise methodology evolved since Cosimo De Medici came up with the idea of double-entry bookkeeping. It takes a few years to learn the mechanics, and a certain alertness and power of differentiation to become good at corporate practice where you are tabulating in numbers the history of billions of transactions, and putting them into their proper accounts so that everything balances. From the auditor’s point of view, learning how to audit is similar, but you are dealing with a huge history of individual transactions the PC has encountered and negotiated (some incorrectly) – billions of them. You learn, as an auditor, over several years, the mechanics, and look for the PC to search for the individual transactions he has engaged in, view them, and put the totals into the proper accounts.
If you look at accounting, it may be easy to read financial statements as published, but not so easy to comprehend the methodology of accounting. Perhaps some of the many profusely disseminated misconceptions about auditing, reflect the same comprehension difficulties. We are very used to accounting – hundreds of years and billions of man-hours of practice. But Dianetic auditing is scarcely 100 years old. It is, nevertheless, a precise methodology developed over the period from the earliest research up to 1965. It does take some study to understand, and even then, some years of practice to be good at it. The attempt is made to explain it in quick summary form, but it’s something like talking to a business about their own books – there are a thousand questions because it is personal. To really understand auditing theory and practice, you have to read it and practice it and see the results for yourself. The same applies in both fields.
This analogy, like all analogies, gets strained if you push it too hard, but accounting rules and regulations change all the time. The distinction to make is that these are minor improvements in the treatment of numbers, and in brief, what to call them, how to label them. These are NOT changes to the discipline of the methodology as practiced. The changes which do occur are, I believe, submitted to the FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) and are reviewed and commented on by **trained practicing professionals who do accounting every day** who actually deal with details and suggest changes which better reflect the history of transactions. Some may be approved by consensus, or modified, or dropped altogether. That would be something like auditors talking and exchanging tips on how to handle tricky situations, how to set up an auditing room, or exchanging references, and senior C/Ses spotting departures from procedures, and clarifying auditors’ understanding. I’ll let some of the financial types who read and post and know a bit more about accounting than I take it from here, if they wish, and let them talk about the accounting of the Co$.
Changing accounting practice, or getting “creative” with the accounts, is a no-no (I am told – I’m not a professional accountant – and I’m not in jail). Changing the established methodology of auditing is also a no-no. All you have to do is listen to the screams and complaints.
“I’m told that ninja accountants can hide even bigger things.”
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1100/fv01079.htm
The problem I have with your comparison of dianetic auditing to accounting is after one has done the accounting there is something to show for it. When the books are balanced they can be proved to be balanced. Dianetic auditing on the other hand may result in momentary feelings of elation similar to what one experiences a million times in the course of their life but those happy moments of optimism don’t result in any significant transformation of the person. There appears to be no cumulative or significant effect to it.
Scientologists have not distinguished themselves as superior in any way. Quite the contrary. Therefore, instead of comparing dianetic auditing to accounting I prefer to compare it to a Rube Goldberg machine. That’s an extremely complicated and fancy device with lots of knobs and switches but for all its intricacies it doesn’t do much of anything.
“Being distinguished as superior…”
I guess that’s what I have a problem with in some of the things people strive for. Not all people strive to be superior to others as an end goal. When I first got involved in Scientology I never saw that as the goal of Scientology and I covered a lot of the early tech. But over the years that concept was marketed and many people who had no idea what Scientology actually was took it to mean pleasing “Scientology superiors” and to gain the power to dominate others themselves. The Scientology executive who never partook in technical endeavors in Scientology grew and grew in power and of course the dominating was fun for them as a purpose and produced lots of money, the real goal of management.
I’m not validating the tech or Hubbard here but the whole shebang developed a common underlying theme, get rid of anyone who can actually audit and/or follow what is written, they are uncontrollable and let’s knuckle down to punishing those who don’t follow command intention. I saw similar traits in some people (brown-noses) in the army but that mechanism was rather easily handled when conditions got too bad – you simply got rid of the assholes, one way or the other. Never fuck with a veteran (& that goes for a cook, medic and storeman too).
Sheeple is a good term.
The professed goal of scientology was to create Homo Novis. That’s a superior person.
Scientologists as a group have not, for all their fantastic ‘wins’ cognitions and ‘stable gains’, distinguished themselves as a happier, more intelligent demographic of people. If scientology processing worked as claimed scientologists would have a reputation for being uncommonly well-adjusted and creative. They have no such reputation therefore I call into question the ultimate value of those ‘wins’. That’s my point.
You are absolutely right Roger look over on Tony’s site at Bart Simpson she says plainly that she wants to be a God.
Hi Roger, Good to see you.Your comment made me remember my very first day at muster @ Asho F.Having no tech dictionary yet,that first encounter with Ron speak mystified me.A Div 7er took me aside and said,Ann you will be a Homo Novis and you will believe.So yes I feel Ron definitely thought he was creating the new improved human.However it was all bs from the start! And did I ever fall for the bait back then!XO
Hi Ann, I remember morning musters at ASHO f. (I think I missed you by a couple months) Being so idealistic I was eager to prove myself worthy. I had no idea at the time I was being duped by an outfit that was rotten to the core! I saw lying and cheating and dirty tricks constantly and all the while people were quoting sweet-sounding LRH platitudes which made it all seem okay, sort of. Remember how busy and bustling that neighborhood was? It was always like Grand Central Station. Not any more. 🙂
Hi roger, We must have missed each other by a few months!It gets harder for me to remember names,but I do better with faces.I felt so much like you did about Ron and The Greatest Team in this or Any Other Universe in the beginning.We both saw the rot beneath the glitter and we got out of Ron Land.Yeah! I pictured the old neighborhood as you wrote.We did rock and roll in those years.Never a parking space for all on course and auditing out on the loading dock, that was classic! but wherever there was a space @ Temple St it was used.Including that crazy course materials closet that held the SHSBC materials and Class 8 too.That was the time when I was QM and the closet was locked from the inside and a dude on Class 8 absolutely had to finish that night.So I was tasked with getting the door unlocked.Right as if I am handy at picking locks.This dude was ready to throw a fit and in desperation I got a wire coat hanger and managed to jiggle the lock open.The next day I was told how OT I had been to get the student through on time.Now so much older and I hope a little wiser,I believe I used good old common sense.Thise OTs still giving off their invisible wins! ❤️
Your point is indeed valid. I’ve never liked understanding how superior relates to human classification. I’ve seen far too many “superior” people in my time. I hate snobs and fascists alike, but in the purported world of religion, it’s a round peg in a square hole.
Dianetics is a targeted methodology designed to CONSUME YOUR MIND,
precisely. That summarizes everything you need to know about auditing, The Bridge, and The Church, along with its precepts and its intentions.
Be aware,
especially when somebody refers to the elaborate, multi-faceted doctrine as if it were something else.
Believing in scientology, same as believing “tech”, same as believing in Dianetics,
believing on faith is giving yourself away, handing control of your life to someone else, an idea.
There is no reason to trust a cult; believe what you will.
But… but… Dianetic/Scientology auditing involves fantasy transactions and creative accounting is the name of the game.
Dianetics, where DM makes monumental claims
And his tortured think, sure does stink
When the poor sheep haven’t got a brain
Dianetics, day and night with fewer saps to buy
Tryin’ to make a buck while the tech is fucked
Selling yet another piece of bright blue sky
They know they belong to the morgue
And the morgue just keeps breeding borgs
And when they say, yeeow-a-yip-i-o-ee ay!
I’m only sayin’ you’re twisting minds, Dianetics!
Dianetics, oy vey!
I’m intrigued by the economics behind yet another revision of Dianetics. As I’ve mentioned in the past, I worked in prepress at a medium sized printing company many years ago and even with my admittedly limited knowledge of Bridge Publications I fail to see logic behind this. Modern printing is a fairly complex process involving real people with real – read expensive – skill sets. Even with the slave wages they pay staff it still costs real money to print the damn thing as a decent run size – say 50,000 or so – requires offset printing instead of the vastly cheaper digital variety. Throw in paper costs and bindery work and the overall cost per book is considerable. A revised edition of a 60+ year old book can hardly expect stellar sales so why publish it in the first place?
Maybe John Q can make the numbers work but I can’t. Seems to me the only reason DM is pushing yet another version of Dianetics is so the church has something new to sell to the sheeple, certainly not to make money.
well, this org is all set up for publication already, overhead is not marginalized just by putting the presses in motion, and, yes, labor is cheap in scn-gy. So, what the hoot, give the minions something to occupy themselves.
But, you are right, that he, the dictator is crazy to rewrite Dianetics, AND throw out the OEC volumes?
(I still can not believe or understand that)
The tech, by Hubbard’s own boundaries and definition, then no longer exists, and what DM is selling IS NOT TECH. That crap was all there was ever to sell in the first place.
Dear RB,
Thank you very much for your keen creativity. I wonder if there is some involution in store for dm, say when he was using LRH to solve anything to what LRH intended to do.
CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW:
PART III
UNFAIR PRACTICES
False, misleading or deceptive representation
14. (1) It is an unfair practice for a person to make a false, misleading or deceptive representation.
Examples of false, misleading or deceptive representations
(2) Without limiting the generality of what constitutes a false, misleading or deceptive representation, the following are included as false, misleading or deceptive representations:
1. A representation that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, ingredients, benefits or qualities they do not have.
2. A representation that the person who is to supply the goods or services has sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection the person does not have.
3. A representation that the goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model, if they are not.
4. A representation that the goods are new, or unused, if they are not or are reconditioned or reclaimed, but the reasonable use of goods to enable the person to service, prepare, test and deliver the goods does not result in the goods being deemed to be used for the purposes of this paragraph.
5. A representation that the goods have been used to an extent that is materially different from the fact.
6. A representation that the goods or services are available for a reason that does not exist.
7. A representation that the goods or services have been supplied in accordance with a previous representation, if they have not.
8. A representation that the goods or services or any part of them are available or can be delivered or performed when the person making the representation knows or ought to know they are not available or cannot be delivered or performed.
9. A representation that the goods or services or any part of them will be available or can be delivered or performed by a specified time when the person making the representation knows or ought to know they will not be available or cannot be delivered or performed by the specified time.
10. A representation that a service, part, replacement or repair is needed or advisable, if it is not.
11. A representation that a specific price advantage exists, if it does not.
12. A representation that misrepresents the authority of a salesperson, representative, employee or agent to negotiate the final terms of the agreement.
13. A representation that the transaction involves or does not involve rights, remedies or obligations if the representation is false, misleading or deceptive.
14. A representation using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact or failing to state a material fact if such use or failure deceives or tends to deceive.
15. A representation that misrepresents the purpose or intent of any solicitation of or any communication with a consumer.
16. A representation that misrepresents the purpose of any charge or proposed charge.
17. A representation that misrepresents or exaggerates the benefits that are likely to flow to a consumer if the consumer helps a person obtain new or potential customers.
15. (1) It is an unfair practice to make an unconscionable representation.
(2) Without limiting the generality of what may be taken into account in determining whether a representation is unconscionable, there may be taken into account that the person making the representation or the person’s employer or principal knows or ought to know,
(a) that the consumer is not reasonably able to protect his or her interests because of disability, ignorance, illiteracy, inability to understand the language of an agreement or similar factors;
(b) that the price grossly exceeds the price at which similar goods or services are readily available to like consumers;
(c) that the consumer is unable to receive a substantial benefit from the subject-matter of the representation;
(d) that there is no reasonable probability of payment of the obligation in full by the consumer;
(e) that the consumer transaction is excessively one-sided in favour of someone other than the consumer;
(f) that the terms of the consumer transaction are so adverse to the consumer as to be inequitable;
(g) that a statement of opinion is misleading and the consumer is likely to rely on it to his or her detriment; or
(h) that the consumer is being subjected to undue pressure to enter into a consumer transaction. 2002, c.
30, Sched. A, s. 15 (2).
Renegotiation of price
16. It is an unfair practice for a person to use his, her or its custody or control of a consumer’s goods to pressure the consumer into renegotiating the terms of a consumer transaction.
16. Unfair practices prohibited
17. (1) No person shall engage in an unfair practice.
One act deemed practice
(2) A person who performs one act referred to in section 14, 15 or 16 shall be deemed to be engaging in an unfair practice.
Advertising excepted
(3) It is not an unfair practice for a person, on behalf of another person, to print, publish, distribute, broadcast or telecast a representation that the person accepted in good faith for printing, publishing, distributing, broadcasting or telecasting in the ordinary course of business.
(3). Rescinding agreement
18. (1) Any agreement, whether written, oral or implied, entered into by a consumer after or while a person has engaged in an unfair practice may be rescinded by the consumer and the consumer is entitled to any remedy that is available in law, including damages.
Remedy if rescission not possible
(2) A consumer is entitled to recover the amount by which the consumer’s payment under the agreement exceeds the value that the goods or services have to the consumer or to recover damages, or both, if rescission of the agreement under subsection (1) is not possible,
(a) because the return or restitution of the goods or services is no longer possible; or
(b) because rescission would deprive a third party of a right in the subject-matter of the agreement that the third party has acquired in good faith and for value.
(3) A consumer must give notice within one year after entering into the agreement if,
(a) the consumer seeks to rescind an agreement under subsection (1); or
(b) the consumer seeks recovery under subsection (2), if rescission is not possible.
Form of notice
(4) The consumer may express notice in any way as long as it indicates the intention of the consumer to rescind the agreement or to seek recovery where rescission is not possible and the reasons for so doing and the notice meets any requirements that may be prescribed.
(5) Notice may be delivered by any means.
(6) If notice is delivered other than by personal service, the notice shall be deemed to have been given when sent.
Address
(7) The consumer may send or deliver the notice to the person with whom the consumer contracted at the address set out in the agreement or, if the consumer did not receive a written copy of the agreement or the address of the person was not set out in the agreement, the consumer may send or deliver the notice,
(a) to any address of the person on record with the Government of Ontario or the Government of Canada; or
(b) to an address of the person known by the consumer.
Commencement of an action
(8) If a consumer has delivered notice and has not received a satisfactory response within the prescribed period, the consumer may commence an action.
(9) If a consumer has a right to commence an action under this section, the consumer may commence the action in the Superior Court of Justice.
(10) In the trial of an issue under this section, oral evidence respecting an unfair practice is admissible despite the existence of a written agreement and despite the fact that the evidence pertains to a representation in respect of a term, condition or undertaking that is or is not provided for in the agreement.
Exemplary damages
(11) A court may award exemplary or punitive damages in addition to any other remedy in an action commenced under this section.
Liability
(12) Each person who engaged in an unfair practice is liable jointly and severally with the person who entered into the agreement with the consumer for any amount to which the consumer is entitled under this section.
Limited liability of assignee
(13) If an agreement to which subsection (1) or (2) applies has been assigned or if any right to payment under such an agreement has been assigned, the liability of the person to whom it has been assigned is limited to the amount paid to that person by the consumer.
(14) When a consumer rescinds an agreement under subsection (1), such rescission operates to cancel, as if they never existed,
(a) the agreement;
(b) all related agreements;
(c) all guarantees given in respect of money payable under the agreement;
(d) all security given by the consumer or a guarantor in respect of money payable under the agreement; and
(e) all credit agreements, as defined in Part VII, and other payment instruments, including promissory notes,
(i) extended, arranged or facilitated by the person with whom the consumer reached the agreement, or
(ii) otherwise related to the agreement.
Waiver of notice
(15) If a consumer is required to give notice under this Part in order to obtain a remedy, a court may disregard the requirement to give the notice or any requirement relating to the notice if it is in the interest of justice to do so. 2
Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)
Transition
19. (1) This Part applies to consumer transactions that occur on or after the day this section is proclaimed in force.
Same
(2) The Business Practices Act, as it existed immediately before its repeal by the Consumer Protection Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002, continues to apply to consumer transactions that occurred before its repeal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Taking advantage
3 It is an unfair business practice for a supplier to take advantage of a consumer if the supplier knows or can reasonably be expected to know that the consumer is not in a position to protect the consumer’s own interests. If someone takes advantage of someone, it is as if the agreement does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Constructive fraud
Definitions (2)
1. Unintentional deception or misrepresentation.
2. Obtaining of a legal but unconscientious advantage through an unfair transaction, such as in dealings with the ignorant, poor, or weak.
Courts may set aside or refuse to enforce an agreement where the terms are such that no person with free volition or proper advice would have agreed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Constructive fraud
Under contract law, a defendant can be liable to a plaintiff for constructive fraud if there was: a false misrepresentation; in reference to a material fact; for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely on such representation; on which the other party did justifiably rely; which resulted in damages or injury; and a fiduciary relationship between the parties.
Bad intent or dishonesty is not a requirement to satisfy constructive fraud.
The elements for actual and constructive fraud are the same with two exceptions: constructive fraud drops the element of scienter–knowledge on the part of the injurer of the representation’s falsity–and adds the element of a fiduciary relationship.
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
When the circumstances show that someone’s actions give that person an unfair advantage over someone else by unfair means (lying or not telling a buyer about defects in a product, for example), the court may decide to treat the situation as if there was actual fraud even if all the technical elements of fraud have not been proven.
Constructive fraud: When someone’s actions or an agreement is so unconscionable, such a rip off, so inequitable, so unbalanced, (lacking in mutual rights, lacking in consumer rights) so unfair, so coerced, so unjust, using trickery or entrapment, lack of full disclosure, lacking in good will and good faith, or contain artifice and wile, or so crooked or lop sided, that even though it is not out right fraud it might as well be fraud.
When a contract or an agreement is so unconscionable, such a rip-off, so inequitable, so unfair, so unjust, that no person in their right mind, that no person who was properly informed or really knew what they were doing would of agreed to it, it is called constructive fraud.
Consent cannot be coerced. Consent cannot be pressured.
Therefore where any contract was made or acquired under coercion, such a contract is not bonafide, not valid. Any contract made without a “meeting of minds”, genuine mutual understanding, good will and good faith is non binding. Such a contract or agreement is as if it does not exist.
If consumer protection laws applied to religion most of them would be in violation. Usually, this sort of nonsense can be hidden under the umbrella of the First Amendment.
Fred,
Your thinking is perverted, twisted and corrupt.
It is near the very bottom of the tone scale.
Most churches have no evil intention and offer a lot of help, to people and communities.
In fact it is the only real help in the world, where ever they are.
It is the only real bona fide help (honest help) that is available.
The good churches, especially the good bonafide Christian churches are the only thing holding the world together as good as it is.
But unfortunately they are losing ground.
The mass of insanity, madness, corruption, ignorance and stupidity, evil and perversion has become far greater than the mass of their ability to keep the balance of power and control.
Like LRH said, when women begin to compete with men on an equal basis in business and politics, we have a society, a civilization that is on it’s way out.
Those are very true words.
We are getting close.
Dio
Are you seriously proposing that view of women is good? I find it very offensive, and frankly ugly (and inconsistent with the idea of thetan/mind/body.
Mike,
That is a problem with such a quote.
If you read the entire article as it is written in Science of Survival, and take what I quoted in proper context,….
Please go and read it.
Is the point or spirit of the idea not true?
Who is looking after the homefront?
Society fails relative to the degree of failure on the homefront.
The war front is due to failure on the homefront.
Dio
Wow. You used the quote and then claim you used it out of context?
There is no context that makes this quote or concept acceptable.
Mike.
1. I did not use it out of context.
2. Why is the idea or “expressed point” of that article , not true, in application?
Dio
I agree with you Mike and it’s more that normal that men and women are treated equally in a civilized world (and it should be like this in an uncivilized world as well). Now, there’s something that has to be known. The one who worked for men/women equality in the 70’s/80’s did not do it because of their love of equality but they had hidden motives doing it. The goal was to put men and women at work so :
1) The government got double income taxes (men and women)
2) The government could get the children much younger in schools (because Mom and Dad both work) and brainwash them to create tomorrow’s new society of sheeps and followers.
In some way, it’s a destruction of the family cell and it’s done with purpose…
“…and brainwash them to create tomorrow’s new society of sheeps and followers.”
Meaning today’s children are raised and “educated” by the State and not the parents anymore, and the youngest they are, the most you can format them to change their perception of reality..
A lot of groups understand that if you get ahold of children from a young age and indoctrinate them into a way of thinking, they will believe the ideas pushed on them. A young mind is still forming, and they tend to accept and follow what they are taught.
I read a book from a girl raised in Iran, and she related how the schoolchildren were taught incorrect versions of factual historical events (even the outcomes of wars) and made to chant ‘death to America’ for 5 minutes every morning before classes began. So they were raised with a hatred of a country they actually knew nothing about.
In North Korea, where the access to the outside world is severely limited, the children are raised to believe that their country is the best, and their leader Kim Jong-un is like a god, despite the totalitarian government, abuses from authorities, lack of proper medical treatments and famine. Stories told by North Koreans who have escaped (and they do have to actually escape, citizens are not allowed to freely leave the country) talk about how shocked they were to see the outside world is nothing like they were told, and how much freer everyone is.
Many religious or quasi-religious groups indoctrinate the children from a young age… Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia make it illegal to disagree with the religion or even to speak an opinion against it – a young man named Hamza Kashgari was arrested and jailed for posting that he didn’t understand or agree with the Prophet Muhammed, which is a crime punishable by death. His story was in the news not because of this, which is common, people are executed there every year for simply speaking out, but because he is one of the very few to escape a death sentence and be released.
http://www.pen-international.org/newsitems/saudi-arabia-fears-for-writer-hamza-kashgari-after-extradition/
Religions habitually indoctrinate young children – many strong believers say they ‘raise children up in the faith’ or in other words influence their minds before they are capable of rational thought. Ex-Jehovah’s witnesses talk about how they were taught things as a child that they later disagreed with, but had accepted all their lives as truth. FLDS members report the same thing, how they heard certain teachings from a very young age and as everyone around them accepted these things, so did they. Later they were surprised to find that most people do not live polygamously or marry their young daughters to 60 year old men as their sixth wife or something similar.
Scientology tries to teach children their methods from a young age, and their current partners the N.O.I. teach children to hate white people (calling them ‘the devil’) from a young age, it’s very sad when children are taught to hate someone on the basis of a skin color, or because their ‘group’ is different or believes something different than the ‘group’ the child is in. (Please do a search on these terms for yourself, if you don’t believe me, I am in no way a racist, this is the truth of the Nation of Islam teachings).
The stories posted here and on other sites from adults who were raised in Scientology or another group that influences the mind, who at some point in their lives suddenly came to an understanding that what they were taught is not really what they believe – those stories are so amazing to read, so heartwarming, when a person talks about how they came to a realization that they didn’t actually believe what was pushed on them from an early age, and how they in fact, are able to now formulate their own opinions. It’s beautiful to see when a person’s mind is free and they are able to think for themself.
As far as the original poster’s assertion about U.S. schools wanting to get ahold of children earlier, to indoctrinate them: I think that compared to other countries like those I’ve mentioned above, or other groups, I tend to think it’s not really a motivation for the US. This is because U.S. public schools have standards that must be met, including a separation of church and state, and we don’t really have ethics studies, social sciences, etc. anymore, that would push a way of thought on children, especially not in the lower grades, and the educational materials are openly available to be viewed and commented on by parents, educators, and the general public. The U.S. also allows education outside of the public school system in the form of: private schools, alternative schools, religious/church schools, at-home education and online learning, i.e. ‘home schooling’ – so there isn’t one uniformed standard of learning required for young children here, there is a wide variety of schooling available. We are not a “brainwashed nation” like North Korea.
Just off the top of my head, who provides help:
Hospitals
Farmers markets
Road workers filling in potholes
Animal shelters
Battered women’s shelters
The constabulary
Nurses
Dialysis centers
The DMV (I know, it sounds like a stretch)
Civil engineers
Sanitation engineers
The water treatment plant
Landscapers
Candy stripers
Strippers
And gee, the list goes on and on.
Oh, did you mean the kind of help that Tom Cruise meant about a car accident? The kind of help where you congratulate yourself for doing nothing of particular value except for the value of the money flowing to fund your “help.” I’ll admit, churches could go on my list too. They offer some people real solace in their theistic fantasies and even more people a community of friends. But that doesn’t apply to any church of Scientology that I know of.
Hi hgc10, Thank you for a perceptive comment.You should be on the help list also because your posts always help me!XO
Is that right Dio..? Is that what Hubbard wrote and can you reference this please? And do you truly share those misogynistic views? Yes, pretty repugnant if so. But good to know. And I have to take you up on your apparent view that the only available honest bona fide or real help is the exclusive domain of churches, as you appear to allude to. Care to explain that? Do you not see what an insult that is to every other decent person who happens to have a different faith outside of Christianity? Or even no faith.
“When women begin to compete with men on an equal basis in business and politics, we have a society, a civilization that is on it’s way out.” Guess Who
Why in the world do you insist on quoting a man so low on the Tone Scale? “Those are very true words.” Says who? You? Take a look at the cultures that currently disallow women from competing with men. You know, countries where women have to stay in their place. Those societies are rather nightmarish.
If you think we are close to civilization being “on its way out” then join the rest of humanity who has, since Sodom and Gomorrah, felt civilization was on its way out. The vast majority of the world is getting on quite splendidly, thank you.
Thank you RogerHornaday, Mike Rinder and anyone else who was sufficiently taken aback by Dio’s comments disparaging women to reply. I thought I’d hold back a bit from replying to Dio’s misogynistic comments myself this time, to see what others thought, and am very happy and thankful to see men here standing up for women.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is an agency of the United Nations concerned with international health, and is a recognized authority. For many years now, this agency has compiled detailed information on issues of health and gender worldwide, and have concluded that in societies where men and women are afforded equal opportunities to live, work, be educated, and participate in society, that those societies as a whole are better for everyone: men, women and children; the societies are healthier, more prosperous, have happier people and a better overall standard of living, and it is directly linked to affording equal rights to all.
Dio can quote Hubbard, and his singular opinion, or decide to listen to the World Health Organization, who provide decades of research by many many people, including doctors, scientists, and economic entities, in many nations, to reach their conclusions.
http://www.who.int/social_determinants/themes/womenandgender/en/
Many other organizations not affiliated to the WHO or United Nations have independently reported similar findings, here is a Canadian agency for example:
“Increasing gender equality improves economic and social conditions for everyone”
http://www.canadianwomen.org/improve-equality
and since Dio is only concerned with men’s rights in society, here’s one for him:
(source: Science Nordic) “Gender equality gives men better lives”
http://sciencenordic.com/gender-equality-gives-men-better-lives
So in conclusion, there are an overwhelming number of agencies reporting and studies showing that in societies where women are allowed equal opportunities to participate, as a result, those societies are better for everyone.
Or Dio can ignore all the findings and choose to quote Hubbard instead. lol.
My viewpoint, nor opinion Hubbard’s dissertation, is not misogynistic the least bit. It is for the love of the true woman, and for the love humanity, for the love of civilization, for the preservation of civilization.
T.J. Your quote: Dio is only concerned with men’s rights in society,
Nothing is further from the truth.
You made up a lie and then accused me of it.
That is certainly a form of insanity. You clearly need to be apprehended and institutionalized to protect public safety asap.
I never said or implied anything about men’s rights. I have minimal use for rights.
I focus on intelligent, responsible thinking, talking and actions.
Be sure your brain is in gear before engaging mouth.
A major cause of all the degeneration of civilization is caused by exercising liberty, freedoms and rights without responsibility.
All your writing and links are perverted humanistic BS, written by politically correct people who get their counsel from snakes and fools. The same calibre of people as was Nero, who according to history was playing the fiddle, while Rome burned.
Civilization is degenerating and destroying itself at an increasingly alarming rate,
while a certain group of militant psychotic women argue for rights.
These are not real women, though. They are incompetent as true women, or to bo aberrated in some way to be qualified as true women, so they become militant psychopaths and grow testicles which produce lots of testosterone, and they compete with men in their domain.
There was a least one intelligent, sensible, sane, mentally competent woman in 1871.
What she so wisely wrote in 1871 has clearly come to pass.
Thoughts on female suffrage and in vindication of woman’s true rights
By Mrs Madeline Vinton Dahlgren, 1871
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/pri…
“We acknowledge no inferiority to men. We claim to have no less ability to perform the duty God has imposed upon us, than they [men] have to perform those imposed upon them. We believe that God has wisely and well adapted each sex to the proper performance of the duties of each. We believe our trusts to be as important and sacred as any that exist.
It is our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons who represent us at the ballot-box. Our fathers and husbands love us. Our sons are what we make them. We are content that they represent us in the corn-field, the battle-field and the ballot-box, and we them in the school-room, at the fireside, and at the cradle; believing our representation, even at the ballot-box, to be thus more full and impartial that it could possibly be were all women allowed to vote.”
“We hold that the new status will prove to be the worst kind of communism. The relations between the sexes, so carefully guarded by religion and by parents, by law and by society, will become common and therefore corrupt. The family, the foundation of the State, will disappear. The mothers, sisters and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more and the female gender will vanish into epicene. “
epicene: 1.having characteristics of both sexes or no characteristics of either sex; of indeterminate sex.
Man woman quality is equal to a dead battery, is equal to the end of humanity, the end of civilization.
The more women do men’s work, the more defeminate/masculine they become. The more they become shemales.
An outstanding example is Meygan Kelly, she fought hard to not only compete with men in their domain, but to be several times better than the men she was working with. She grew huge testicles which pump huge amounts of testosterone and now she looks like a big ugly dick: Take a look:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=meygan+kelly+pictures&tbm=isch&imgil=vtun-UQHd0wraM%253A%253BgFIaJTpzr6EOpM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fvariety.com%25252F2016%25252Ftv%25252Fnews%25252Fdonald-trump-megyn-kelly-fox-news-blasts-sick-1201734151%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=vtun-UQHd0wraM%253A%252CgFIaJTpzr6EOpM%252C_&usg=__Dazg0igTFA9JscIHKJahW68WK7M%3D&biw=1512&bih=941#imgrc=vtun-UQHd0wraM%3A
The women who compete with men in their domain, produce more testosterone, which aberrates the chemistry between men and women and increasingly causes causes erectile dysfunction and psychosis in men, and the break down of marriages, families and homes.
This increases psychosis in children, of which many become terrorists, mad men, mad women, and mass murderers and other types of criminals which is causing the destruction of civilization (the armageddon and the apocalypse). All those terrorists and mass murderers are the products of failure on the homefront of one kind or another.
Only insane, incompetent, negligent, aberrated women can “cause” the destruction the world. Men will never ’cause” the destruction of the world. Men will go mad and secondarily cause war to destroy women indirectly. But it is not first cause.
In vain we build a world if we do not preserve the sanctity of the home front.
Dio
This is most likely your last post here. I only include it for the record so that people understand why I am inclined to make you the first person I officially block on this blog.
Your rant is disgusting.
If this is all you have to discuss why are you apparently afraid to use your real name? You certainly pose no threat to scientology/OSA/Ethics Officers. So what are you afraid of?
Your horrible rants against women and weird theories, are sick. Your response to TJ is completely out of line. Your hallucinations about Megyn Kelly are simply bizarre (remember, I have seen her in person). You are a disgrace.
Yuck.
Bravo Mike. You’ve shown remarkable tolerance in the past in allowing some of the more outrageous comments through but in this case I’d say you’ve had no choice. Rarely have I felt so reviled by someone’s views or comments – it’s not the kind of thing I come here to follow – so I applaud you in what must have been a rather reluctant milestone.
The original Dianetics book was written for one specific reason…at least what Hubbard said at the time. It was to get the materials together quickly for the volumes of people writing in and coming by, inquiring how to do it so they could start auditing and finding someone to audit them. It had its own purpose and this whole time, with all these “revisions,” valid or not, never even needed to be messed with.
Why not collect up all the other stuff and do an accompanying volume of other discovered material? And keep changing THAT one around if you wanted to! The ambitious projects to continually alter the original books, then alter the altered ones, (just to pull more money out of people) just blows my mind.
This latest RB strip may be more revealing than intended. It presents a very realistic scenario where a staffer would actually put the ethics wheels in motion for the sake of one measly book sale. Getting expelled for not buying a DN book would be like getting life imprisonment for littering. Even the most insane police state wouldn’t bother with that kind of triviality. The COS would and does.
You just can’t make this stuff up. I got chills at the evil that is not stated out loud… “bring in your old book and you’ll get 50% off this book…” What is not said but is implied is to bring in your old book so we can burn it. That way no one can go back and compare these “new and improved versions” to the original that LRH wrote and did proof read and did approve before they were printed. If all the earlier versions are gone, then they have successfully re-written history and the ‘scripture’ of the ‘church.’ Any time I hear of book burning I get a bad feeling and it reminds me of Nazi Germany and also “1984” where Big Brother re wrote everything to fit the propaganda he was putting out. And then the person uses extortion…. buy it or I’ll write a KR on you and you’ll spend tons of money in Sec Checks. This sounds too horrible to actually be done, but believe me, they do it every day and think nothing of it. Staff have become so used to being ruled by force, intimidation, threats, that they in turn do it to public and think nothing of it.
My first reaction was annoyance, that anyone would change a book and claim it is now “what the author intended”. Where is the proof that the author wanted the book this new way instead of how it was when originally published? L Ron Hubbard was alive when his book was published, did anyone ever hear him say there were things he meant to put in the book but didn’t? Or things he wanted to delete? He’s no longer here to speak for himself and no one should be allowed to change his book without his consent and approval.
Dianetics was published in 1950. LRH was alive for 36 years after the books publication (he died in 1986) and if he wanted to put something else in the book in all that time, he would have. So leave his book as it is.
Should someone change Shakespeare and decide to add stuff or delete stuff, then claim that now it is what the author really intended? Or the works of Jane Austin? So let’s change George Orwell’s books or Leo Tolstoy or Walt Whitman and just claim “now it’s how they really intended it to be”. It’s so wrong.
Also, why do they make people return their original book? So it can be destroyed, so no one can tell what was changed? The very first thing I would do, is compare the new book to the older one to see what changed – what did they add? What did they delete? No way would I give back my original book, because I want to read the book that the author L Ron Hubbard approved when it was published, not what David Miscavige has now changed it to say.
Dave reminds of this Einstein quote: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
No Mephisto, DM expects the SAME result. More $ for him. Quite sane in THAT regard. His followers on the other hand…
Good point. Time for an edit: “Insanity is following command intention (aka COB) to the point where your spine collapses and your brain turns into corn mush, expecting to make it to full OT.”
Hi Mephisto. The insanity quote is wrongly attributed to Einstein. He didn’t say it.
Here are a few links about it:
http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/9-albert-einstein-quotes-that-are-totally-fake-1543806477
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/insanity-definition_n_1159927.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-therapy/200907/the-definition-insanity-is
Thanks, T.J.
Maybe it’s still all about the money.
Right on on everything you say TJ and Regraded Being. “Should someone change Shakespeare and decide to add stuff or delete stuff, then claim that now it is what the author really intended? Or the works of Jane Austin? So let’s change George Orwell’s books or Leo Tolstoy or Walt Whitman and just claim “now it’s how they really intended it to be”. It’s so wrong. “
DM should make a stab at correcting the Bible as it’s the most popular book in the world. Oh, wait, didn’t LRH say Christ was an implant? Hey, that’s the ticket! Dave could clear up the confusion once and for all.
Thanks Cindy! I’m glad you agree with me. It just seems unfair to change what L Ron Hubbard wrote without obtaining his consent and agreement, which he is not able to give.
Also, a published work should stand as it was written, as it is already recorded in history. LRH said what he said, no one should try to change his words.
If David Miscavige feels that what LRH wrote is no longer relevant, or applicable to Scientology, maybe he can write a new book outlining the procedures he wants to use now. But he shouldn’t change what LRH wrote.
My first thought was Mike’s question from yesterday: “You know he’s dead, right?”
Hi Cre8tivewmn, Thank you for your comment.I thought the same and Mike R has a great touch with his comments.It seems to me there is alot of nostalgic quotes about and from Ron while at the same time the other hand of dm is revising re-doing re-issuing anything he can to continue to sell his brand.The sheeple must be sheep walking to not see the fallacy in that viewpoint.There is no reason to re-do DMSMH.It was not particularly stellar reading when it came out,but boy did that stupid volcano hook me big time into The Sea Org! Lol XOOld Ron is trted out on a regular basis,creepy!
Hi, Should be trotted out,my bad Ann B
Good Old Ed Burtram had 12 original copies of Djanetic’s personally signed by LRH
The SF Org worked day and night to take them away from him.
ED put up a fight to keep them that was worthy of a waterfront brawl.
I have a friend who has an original signed by El Con and Diana. He says it is for sale!
Anyone interested in a purchase can contact me via Mike’s site.
Yo OSA,
email any and all potential offers to Mike Rinders site. Use a good alias or we will bust you.
I hope he kept them! Why did they try to take them away from him?
The simple answer: Mind control.
I tried controlling my mind once. It gave me a headache and I never did it again.
I pickled mine, works for me.
Ed was a close friend of Ron. He was upstaging the Org without letup
so getting his autographed books would end it.
Where is the bait-and-switch that forces him to buy a pallet of the book?
These sheep believe everything DM spews. Apparently, their source and founder was an idiot and published Dianetics and all of his other books without ever reading them after publishing. DM saved the day by revising them with “lost content” and of course adding thumb tabs. Now they are what LRH intended!
Purely a scam to get some books sold. No normal, public person is buying any of that Scientology rubbish anymore and they have to force their flock to buy it so they can have at least some book sales stats.
I just threw away thousands of dollars worth of unused, unwrapped lectures and books that my 24 year old son was coerced to go into huge debt to buy. The dump-hauling company is coming this morning. He left them with us and is now disconnected from us. We were thinking of burning them but didn’t want to pollute the air and there was no way I was going to donate them to a place where someone may accidently read that crap.
I’m so sorry to hear about your son disconnecting from you 🙁 Let’s hope that won’t last long. I hope he comes to his senses very very soon and gets back in contact with you. A parent-child bond should not be broken, it’s heartbreaking. hang in there and keep the faith that you will be reunited. sending best wishes… love, T.J.
Mine are in the city landfill. 🙂
Dave,
Are you personally scraping the bottom of those shipping containers from Int to get ‘previously unpublished materials’?
Hi madame duran, Good to meet you.Your comment is priceless! XO
THUMB TABS?!!!!!! TAKE MY MONEY!!!!
Been sitting in storage next to the Hasbro Meters for an eternity.
just one thumb tab.
“So great has been the demand that for a limited time we’re giving it to you for half price” What BS, if there was such demand that is exactly what they wouldn’t do. Just read the exact opposite and you’ll have the truth. “The demand for this book is non-existent, so would you please please pretty prett please with sugar on stats buy a copy, I’ll give it to you for half price even”
After Daniel finds the balls he lost:
Janice: Oh, Daniel I’ve got great news!
Daniel: Me too.
Janice: What is it?
Daniel: Tell COB to go fuck himself.
Janice: What did you just say?
Daniel: You heard me sweetheart. Oh, and move away from the door before I kick your ass so hard you’ll be standing for the next three months at mealtimes chowing down on your rice and beans. Capisce?
You’re my hero!
I’m feeling my flows unstick!
That’s what being a hero will do to you! Unstuck flows…
?
VERY FUNNY RB!!!
The best reason for buying the book is: insatiable avariciousness of the COB. (Or when enough is never enough) An example from wogdom: Imelda Marcos and her shoes.
Dear Dan,
Yes, you can get audited on New New Era Dianetics if you’re OT VIII! And ON the Fleecewinds, too, where it can cost you top top dollar!
Thank you RB – another spot on strip.
I never got past the first chapter of DMSMH. Actually, I was never able to FINISH the first chapter. Such excreable writing and mishmash of words. Though I got a lot out of scn personally, virtually none of it came from Hubbard’s books. This one was the worst. And lord only knows how Miscavige has figured out how to screw it up worse, but I’m sure he managed.
Ditto. It was one of the most poorly written books I’ve ever encountered. I thought that he must have been on heavy meds when he wrote it. Kinda ironic.
Once, on coming out of the course room in Joburg, I was cornered by the ED and chief reg Albert de Beer, and marched to his office where I was surrounded by no less than four people, including my opinion leaders (I can no longer call them friends, but did look up to them at that time). There I was brow beaten to buy some shit that I cannot remember (does it actually matter anyway – it’s always the money that matters). I hadn’t yet got onto OT7 so had no problem saying no, which I did repeatedly. You know how they operate – establishing consecutive points of agreement with you that climb up to a higher level of agreement until one supposedly would agree with anything they say. Well I knew that tactic by now, and duly agreed with everything they said until it got to the bottom line, when I said No! I was perfectly aware how stupid I sounded, agreeing to everything and still saying no. Did I care? Eventually, the conversation reached it’s inevitable conclusion when Albert told me “You’re full of shit!” Will that be all? I enquired.
To this day, I get a deep sense of satisfaction recalling that reg cycle.
It takes a lot of stamina to stand up to regs like that. Kudos!
Hi dr.mac, Thank you for your great comment! I would say you deserve much satisfaction for your spin on the regges spin.Yiu got them! XO
Ah yes, Albert de Beer – another happy graduate of the RPF. I raise a glass of kool-aid for him. Bottoms up shipmate!
I did a round like that back in the early nineties at Flog. Charmaine Rogers and Mitch Talevi had me in a locked room at the FH and it went something like “either you will donate or we will be sleeping here!”
I was in a chair and it went something like “well you best turn out the lights!” They were pissed and mentioned an aside about J&Ding.
Ah yes, the good old days. Did you guys do a sleepover?
There were only two chairs ………………. I wasn’t giving up mine.
Good one RB. Guess we should not feel too sorry for the still-ins. They are or have become cowards.
Or what else do you call someone who sees what they are told to see?
Cowards sounds about right. I got the feeling that they are weeding out the courageous ones since they can’t be subjected to command intention, and keeping the ones that are willing to be robots. Of course, they string you along until your broke first.
“How could I bring you my old edition of Dianetics if you’re blocking the door?”. Seriously, that would’ve been my question. Then the moment I was let out, I’d calmly walk out the door never to return.
She’d just follow you home
A great opportunity for deprogrammers to work her over!
Won’t deny that would be creepy behaviour but…so what? She’d follow me home. She might even bring along a second person for back up. The fact is that you are no longer trapped on Scientology property. You are in a public space. You can make calls (phone calls, call out to someone on the street). You can make a scene. You can run away. Not sure how easy this would be in downtown Clearwater with Scientology’s dominance in the area but for everywhere else, I’d think it’s a good gamble. The idea is to get outside and show public resistance to your cult “minders”. Let everyone around you know that something wrong is happening. Scientology doesn’t like garnering negative attention. It doesn’t want their secret, evil deeds to be witnessed by others. You, on the other hand, would want to create that dilemma for the cult.