Newsgroup Postings : Re: Duh! Poor deluded Phil does it again!

Re: Duh! Poor deluded Phil does it again!
From: Alan Walter <wisdom@cyberstation.net>
Subject: Re: Duh! Poor deluded Phil does it again!
Date: 1999/04/21
Message-ID: <371E60ED.8398E70@cyberstation.net>#1/1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3.0.4.32.19990305155455.00b78da0@cyberstation.net>
 <371ad58b.0@news2.lightlink.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news20.ispnews.com 924737792 205.167.1.137
 (Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:36:32 EDT)
Organization: Cyberstation, Inc.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: wisdom@cyberstation.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:36:32 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology




Jeaux wrote:

> Alan it's not that bad of a post.  There is some truth in it.
>
> It sounds like it hit home when you lampoon it like this and use the
> exaggerated, "BWAHAHAHA!!!".
>
> His use of the phrase, "Knowledgism Clones" is obviously vindictive, but I
> wish you would consider what he said.
>
> The truth is you are very influential here.  There is a comraderie going
> amongst your followers which they will not break for anyone pointing out or
> suggesting something inappropriate.  That doesn't establish you as
> impeccable.  It is just human behavior.  You have the "recruits" support.
> It's not too far from "mob psychology".  They're going to support you for,
> if no other reason, to remain in your good graces.

Depends who's doing the pointing out. :-)

Further teammates and teamwork are very similar to Cult behavior.

I do not know who you specifically mean, so I cannot truly answer the
accusation.

But I do know this all the staff and many of clients have run "The Cultural
DeOppression and DeProgramming" procedures, which as far as I can tell is the
only way to undo a beings propensity to make Cults.

> If you haven't acknowledged Hubbard's Coercion, deception, and sadism by
> this time it can rightfully be assumed that you don't intend to.  But I
> think it would be much more ARC supportive from your following if you
> acknowledged Hubbard's many failings.  Whatever the Tech does for the group
> will still be done, and that will relieve some tension due to some of your
> followers dealing with what must appear to them as "reality enforcement".

I am well aware of Hubbards weaknesses and the booby-traps in his technology.
But I am also aware of his contributions. Only the insane or the ignorant would
throw the baby out with the bath water.

I have on numerous occasions brought them to view on act.

No matter what the critics say, Hubbard attempted to teach everyone how to
process each other and help them improve themselves.

The public that I meet now are nothing like the public of the 50's - 60's -
70's - or 80's. They have evolved. The Tech must also evolve.

Instead of trashing LRH and Scio. Just find what was missed, what was less than
optimum. And improve the game.

Will Scientology still be around 50 years from now? Does it matter. Their glory
days are over, their tech set in stone already dated and their methodology near
obsolete. Even the most basic tenets long ago violated. A safe environment?
Confidentiality of folders? Make friends with the environment? All violated
beyond recognition.

Will the internet be around 50 years from now? Does it matter? Yes, because it
will continuously evolve. More and more knowledge will be available. All the
copyrights of today will have expired.

Dwelling on the past is an absurd game. Not worth playing.

Alan


> >Subject: (fwd) Parallels
> >
> >On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:04:49 -0800.
> >In Message-ID: <002a01be6669$8355f380$15118ed1@philscot>
> >"P.Scott" <pscott@inreach.com>.
> >From: .
> >Wrote on the subject: Parallels:
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I've noticed a predominance of Knowledgism clones on  ACT  , that turn
> >out later to be also pushing the CoS agenda.   Primarily by obfuscating
> >the criminal issues within the cult, and by trashing anyone who mentions
> >the truth about hubbards past.....  its silent support,  if the issue
> >isn't brought up, just validation of the cults technology basically.
> >
> > But if one posts aggressively truthful material about Hubbard, or his
> >technical fornication...... the knowledgism contingent come out, it seems
> >to me, a bit more heavily than if they were impartial, or not vested in
> >the success of the cult.
> >
> >One wonders if there might be a joint venture in progress   Alan spent 30
> >years as the leading founder of cult missions world wide, replete with
> >covert ops of the time.... and targets those who disagree with him as
> >'enemies' today......I still think its a slim chance that Alan has cut a
> >deal with the cult.
> >
> >I talked to alan a few years ago, at that time he was, I believe,
> >genuinely afraid of what the cult would do to him should he come out
> >publicly......and it seems in a few aspects he oposes the cult today.....
> >but it does seem odd that I am seeing this heavy support for hubbard from
> >those who say they are knowledgism clones.....
> >
> >
> >Its getting to be a about an 80% prevelant pattern.....  its also evident
> >that the infiltration level of the NG by cult supporters is considerably
> >above 50% level.....and that the knowledgism clones are in heavy support
> >of those pushing the cults agenda. .....
> >
> >or I may be halucinating.    I don't believe the cult has ever used
> >infiltration tactics before to take over an operation......  or have
> >they?
> >
> >Phil
> >