Re: LMT/Freezone Merger?
From: Ralph Hilton
Subject: Re: LMT/Freezone Merger?
Date: 2000/01/18
Message-ID: #1/1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3883ED23.F608954F@concentric.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@magnet.at
X-Trace: newsmaster01.magnet.at 948210765 18708 195.170.79.80
(18 Jan 2000 15:52:45 GMT)
Organization: Freezone Austria
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: ralph@hilton.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jan 2000 15:52:45 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
On 17 Jan 2000 23:44:26 EST, Steve Plakos wrote:
On 17 Jan 2000 23:44:26 EST, in alt.religion.scientology you wrote:
>Recent developments make it important, IMO, to raise a couple of
>questions. In raising these questions, I want to state at the outset
>that I respect the rights of others to believe what they will provided
>those beliefs, or more accurately, the practice of those beliefs do not
>harm others. It is on this point that I part company with those anxious
>to incorporate Freezone Scientologists and others into the LMT until we
>clarify a few points:
>1. Safe, Pilot, and others have stated that they believe in the Tech.
>They want the original Tech delivered without the exploitation and high
>cost of the ?Church? of Scientology. This position assumes that the
>Tech as devised by L. Ron Hubbard is real, workable, and that his
>original intentions for the Tech were benign.
My personal beliefs and intentions aren't quite like that. I would like the
tech as Hubbard originally wrote to be available to those who wish to study
it at reasonable prices.
I don't see the tech as universally perfect and workable. I would like to
see it improved upon and subjected to rigorous testing.
Nor do I believe that Hubbard was totally benign. I have seen parts of his
charachter that I would consider evil.
I believe that Scientology contains much of a foundation for future
development of a spirually based technology of human improvement.
>2. Safe, Pilot, and others since their arrival on ARS have promoted the
>idea that there is a distinction between the Co$,inc. and the ?S?. They
>argue that Scientology without its current owners would be faithful to
>LRH's original vision making delivery of ?Standard Tech? a beneficial
>thing.
I wouldn't support that position. Scientology has the capability of becoming
far worse than it is. I have observed people in the "FZ" who are far less
ethical than the CofS they criticize.
I think that some people could use the tech of Scientology more ethically
than the CofS.
>I don't believe that either one or two above is true. The historical
>record on LRH, while not comprehensive, is certainly complete enough to
>make judgments about the man, his integrity, and his personal conduct as
>founder and leader of Scientology. The methodology designed by Hubbard
>himself, leaving aside for the time being the authenticity of his
>claims, is known to be a form of Conditioned Response Training (CST).
>
>Hubbards first objective, IMO, was to convince the pc that the benefits
>of Scientology (Dianetics) are real. Every one of you who have ever
>experienced auditing knows how this works. From the first step to the
>end of the ?Bridge? you can't go anywhere until you say ?I've won.? You
>must write up your wins. You must declare that each and every course
>gave you a great boost up the ladder. You are conditioned to give the
>correct response.
>
>Question #1: Can Standard Tech be delivered in a manner that does not
>depend upon the pc being forced to acknowledge non-existent wins?
Yes. One just refrains from insisting on Success stories and such practicess
as "Ra Ra Ron" after study.
>Isn't
>it true that LRH designed the delivery method and the course material?
Yes.
>Question #2: Why should opponents of LRH's abusive methodology give up
>their opposition at the behest of individuals, even well meaning and
>highly personable individuals, who may not yet recognize that they
>themselves have been victimized?
I see no need for that to occur. Actual ubusive methodologies should be
stripped from the practices.
>Question #3: Isn't their a qualitative difference between coercive
>practices being passed off as ?beliefs? and religious convictions that
>are truly a matter of faith?
Answering that would entail a detailed definition of terms but essentially
it would seem so.
I don't see a merger occurring by any means.
Having spent nearly 10 years in the Sea Org, some of it on the Apollo with
Hubbard, I have quite an extensive knowledge of the practices. I felt that
my experience might be of use to the LMT and offerred my services in an
advisory capacity.
I haven't seen any intention or action toward incorporation of FZ
practitioners into the LMT in a policy making or management position.
--
Ralph Hilton
http://Ralph.Hilton.org
Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org
