|
Nordenholz's Intro Author: misiunas Posted: 2001-11-18 12:15 Would someone, by chance, have a copy of the Nordenholz book and in particular the intro made by, I think it was 'Freie Zone'. It sounds like it would be quite interesting and I would like to see the words with my own eyes, so to speak. Thanks! Author: virginia Posted: 2001-11-18 14:32 Paul, Funny you should ask, I just received the Nordenholz book that I ordered! I am not sure what you mean by intro, but there is this, (in the front of the book). THE FREE ZONE ASSOCIATION "The Free Zone Association (Freie Zone e.V.) was founded by supporters of cognition-philosophies. A cognition-philosophy deals with the change and development of individuals through self-achieved cognitions. By this, one should gain a greater understanding and responsibility for oneself, others and for one's entire environment. The philosophy of Scientology is hereby of prime interest. To a great extent, it has it roots in Buddhism. The philosophy basically states that man can free himself from undesirable circumstances and regain hidden abilities by his own power, with help of a precise technology of the mind. We are supporting this philosophy and are able to gain valuable experience with its use. The association emphatically separates itself from the official and unofficial organizations of the Church of Scientology. Our goal is to freely use the technology and philosophy of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. In our opinion, the free and unrestricted pursuit of this subject is currently not possible, either in the Church of Scientology, or in society in general. We want to promote a dialogue and to find a better mutual understanding through a maximum of tolerance and respect towards other beliefs, philosophies and religions." Well! Hmm. there ya go Paul. I have to tell ya, there is, at first glance, some examples of quite skilled double and even some triplespeak in this, for those observant enough to pick up on it. That's very interesting, I'll have to consider this a bit more. Virginia Author: misiunas Posted: 2001-11-18 22:09 That's it! Thanks for posting it, Virginia. 
You wouldn't happen to know exactly WHO wrote that do you? I have to agree with you. There does seem to be a fair amount of fluidity in there. Very interesting... Author: Scipher Posted: 2001-11-19 11:50 My impression always was that the only real reason for ?marketing? Nordenholtz? book is to be able to use the word ?Scientologie? anywhere and anyhow without having the Church sue for copyright infringement. The CoS have tried and lost: http://www.scientologie.de/domain_dispute.htm. I never thought it had anything to do with proper Scientology, although I have never read the book and don't plan to. Seeing that the publishing rights were granted in 1996, a full five years after CBR, I really can't say if there is any other reason for this book in the Freezone. Perhaps CBR intended it (to get the name from the curch), or maybe not. Perhaps it's somebody else?s good idea of how to ?repatriate? the name ?Scientologie? from the curch, or perhaps it's a bad attempt at distracting people. So I am now unsure. I would like to know though. Author: virginia Posted: 2001-11-20 02:07 Paul, You said: You wouldn't happen to know exactly WHO wrote that do you? *My guess would be Bernd, he seems to have the best English. . Anyone else here know if Bernd wrote it? You said: I have to agree with you. There does seem to be a fair amount of fluidity in there. Very interesting... *Yes, indeed. Starting with positioning Scientology as a cognitive philosophy. (something I doubt strongly LRH ever did). Virginia Scipher, Wow! You are from Russia, how great to talk to someone so far away. Where are you on the bridge? You said: My impression always was that the only real reason for ?marketing? Nordenholtz? book is to be able to use the word ?Scientologie? anywhere and anyhow without having the Church sue for copyright infringement. *Ok. But sounds like somebody's justifier. For example, the church "says" theoretically that doing all the BOTWO works was for copyright "good" reasons as well, and look where that went. See, when you set out to influence someone, doing a "big bang" won't fly in the long run. So, you get them to agree with "little" "oh I guess that's ok" reasonableness type of things. Like, promoting an off-source book in order to "secure copyright security". Sounds "good", but push that action out in the future a bit, and see where *somebody* is heading that vector, and you'll see what happened to the Church. A Little bit at a time. Starting just like this. Line that action up with 6-7 year unobserved and uncared for "mistakes" in source material (KEY admin briefings on freezone.de site that I found were altered, and had to be corrected), an aversion to ethics/justice (see free zone newsletter where there is discussion/subtle disagreement over the 9th dynamic being named ethics by LRH), Gross alterations of upper level data in regards the view of the thetan and his case at lower levels of the bridge, changing EP's, no responsibility for the church and the people in it, no responsibility for the "freezone" (the propagandized one-not CBR's def), etc. etc, and you begin to see what *somebody* has been quite busy at, slowly, but surely. Just like what happened to the Church, only in an earlier stage. That's what LRH told Mike basically as well,he talked about that in his post. (if you saw his post on the old board about the "un-freezone".) The CoS have tried and lost: http://www.scientologie.de/domain_dispute.htm. *I don't think that necessarily only means what it appears. Could be a problem-reaction-solution kind of setup. Promote problem of "copyright threat" by using a "copyrighted" or "trademarked" whatever, get reaction -attack from church, propose solution of nordenholz, Implement it and then have a "win". But win what really? At what cost? I wouldn't have done it. No way. It's those eensy beensy little bendings of your integrity that start the road back to hell. We have had LOTS of practice, we should know better by now. LOL Course it would help to actually REMEMBER those times right? : wink : Anyways, You said: I never thought it had anything to do with proper Scientology, although I have never read the book and don't plan to. *whoever the writer is that writes things here and there that isn't Nordenholz, has definitely tried to point out "corollaries" with LRH's Scientology. That was a bad move. You said: Seeing that the publishing rights were granted in 1996, a full five years after CBR, I really can't say if there is any other reason for this book in the Freezone. Perhaps CBR intended it (to get the name from the curch), or maybe not. *No, he did not, ask him. Or, ask Bernd and Heimdal where they got the idea from. You said: Perhaps it's somebody else?s good idea of how to ?repatriate? the name ?Scientologie? from the curch, or perhaps it's a bad attempt at distracting people. So I am now unsure. I would like to know though. *So do I, and I will find out and pull down these strings. I find it very interesting, that Nordenholz's father, was the German Consul in Argentina. Now, isn't that where all the Nazi War criminals went? That's a little too coincidental for my taste, that's just one of the strings we are going to pull on this. Also, the total dearth of information so far on the net as to Nordenholz, yet he is the co-founder of the infamous Archiv that was very much involved in Naziism. Now that Archiv, I find all over the net, but nothing about Nordenholz. That's odd too. A scientologist(s), in Ron's org, promoting a book of someone who was co-founder of the infamous Archiv-a prominant Nazi agenda proponent, is a very large outpoint, all by itself as well. Markabians apply Nazi principals spiritually, did you know that? Ie: only allowing *certain* thetans to be in their society, and they have to prove they are who they are when they come back, and *only the best* (read most controlled) are allowed. I bet they even *approach* thetans they *want* to control and sweettalk them into the joys of being amongst the *other* outstanding thetans. Offer perks, whatever. Schmoozing 101. I have had this happen twice both in and out of the church, actually. Ie: wow, you are such a strong thetan with so much integrity, I'd like to reward you with special treatment. In the church that was RTC. ie loosely paraphrased "I might make an EXCEPTION for YOU" in regards the six month check. A "free ride" in other words. Spiritual bribery. See? the preferential treatment, for the minor price of trading your integrity and future as a being. Out of the church? That's a story for another day. A couple of them actually. 
Virginia Author: Steve Posted: 2001-11-20 18:17 Hi Virginia, I appreciate the discussion you and Scipher had in your above post (2001-11-20 02:07 ) Truth be told, I have been "pondering" along similar lines myself. Your response has helped considerably, thanks for cleaning this area up, great hating to. Yes I would be interested to see how the thread runs, I bet it turns out to be a well used and familiar one. Should be easy enough to find though, just look for a real dirty, black massy thread. On second thought?.. considering how many dirty black massy threads are out there,?.. I guess you can take your pick, hopefully it will lead you to the needed basic on the chain. Author: virginia Posted: 2001-11-20 20:45 Steve, You said: Hi Virginia, I appreciate the discussion you and Scipher had in your above post (2001-11-20 02:07 ) Truth be told, I have been "pondering" along similar lines myself. *well, it's nice to meet another thetan still capable of "pondering"! Really, it seems in short supply around old earth. So well done for not being easy prey for the ole marcabian snooker step, I mean that. It's rare. You said: Your response has helped considerably, thanks for cleaning this area up, great hating to. *You are welcome. You said: Yes I would be interested to see how the thread runs, I bet it turns out to be a well used and familiar one. Should be easy enough to find though, just look for a real dirty, black massy thread. On second thought?.. considering how many dirty black massy threads are out there,?.. I guess you can take your pick, hopefully it will lead you to the needed basic on the chain. *Yea, all roads kind of lead to Rome, in this case, as you said, we can take our pick. But I like to pull them all down, feel free to pick some yourself and give em a tug, ok? Just keep the info in as to what you find, as I will as well. I am glad you are making it through the "firewalls" priorly set up, Marcabian style, and can still see. 
Virginia Author: misiunas Posted: 2001-11-20 22:49 Nice conversing going on here.
============================================ THE FREE ZONE ASSOCIATION >>"The Free Zone Association (Freie Zone e.V.) was founded by supporters of cognition-philosophies. For some reason, the dictionary wanted to express itself: cognition: 1. the act or process of knowing; perception. 2. something known or percieved. 3. (obsolete) knowledge. My idea of the definition of Scientology is 'knowing how to know'. (It's a crazy idea that has stuck with me for some strange reason. ) 'Knowing how to know' seems far superior to the concept of 'cognition' alone.
It sounds nice to involve oneself with a 'cognition philosophy', but if the Scientology philosophy of 'knowing how to know' were to be accepted, there would be little use for the appearance of similar, but certainly not the same, philosophies. The similarities would run parrallel along the lines of 'cognition'. Scientology would be the senior in this regard through 'knowing how to know'. The government, the public school system, even your local fast food restaurant employs a type of 'cognitive philosophy'. These surely don't reward it's adherents with any type of spiritual freedom, but they do give stimulating sensory feedback. Just like a drug that has been specifically engineered to produce a 'spiritual high', all the while sucking away theta like there is no tomorrow. >>A cognition-philosophy deals with the change and development of individuals through self-achieved cognitions. By this, one should gain a greater understanding and responsibility for oneself, others and for one's entire environment. This validates what I just said above. Basing spiritual freedom on a 'bridge' that keeps you on that bridge without the possibility of ever getting to the OTHER side is not Scientology, but a 'cognitive philosophy'. Drugs can hook the body and the thetan perpetually, forever. Confidential materials, when they are exposed via this mentality have the exact same effects. Both provide a sensory feedback that 'sticks' a thetan to it like super glue. There would be no 'knowing how to know', only cognitions to enhance the sensory feedback mechanism of entrapment. It's not the cognition, it's the 'knowing how to know'. >>The philosophy of Scientology is hereby of prime interest. Of prime interest to further the 'cognition philosophy' approach. It would be called 'alteration'. What would be the 'secondary' interest? >>To a great extent, it has it roots in Buddhism. To a great extent, Scientology owes it's roots to all the universes ever imagined and to all the thetans who have ever populated those universes. Buddhism does reflect some of the intent behind Scientology, but to say that it has it's roots in Buddhism would be a justification. For what? >> The philosophy basically states that man can free himself from undesirable circumstances and regain hidden abilities by his own power, with help of a precise technology of the mind. Wow. Scientology DOES NOT promote the idea of regaining 'hidden' abilities. If the viewpoint of 'hiding' is assumed, then all thetans are hiding and all of the so-called 'abilities' which a thetan may be considered to 'have', would be 'hidden' as well. "We are not here, we do not exist." With that viewpoint, all sorts of things can, and have, been done in the name of 'freedom'. The 'technology of mind' sounds like the "Science of Mind" people. Both are way off. The spiritual freedom of 'knowing how to know' has nothing to do with demonstrating someone's idea of 'hidden' abilites, or of freeing oneself from 'undesireable circumstances'. It's the goal of spiritual freedom that is sought, not the cognitive feedback mechanism. >>We are supporting this philosophy and are able to gain valuable experience with its use. Enslavers have used 'cognitive philosophies' to good use and are continually refining their craft. Even the Scientology of today has been altered to such a degree that it is almost unrecognizable. Gaining experience is part of the cognitive feedback mechanism where sensory data is actively sought and demanded, no matter the consequence. With Scientology, there is only one experience sought, spiritual freedom and through 'knowing how to know' even that experience turns on itself. >>The association emphatically separates itself from the official and unofficial organizations of the Church of Scientology. Scientology is not pursued there and it has been stated that cognitive philosophies are being whole heartedly embraced by the supporters of the Free Zone Organization. Where are those who embrace 'knowing how to know'? >>Our goal is to freely use the technology and philosophy of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. In our opinion, the free and unrestricted pursuit of this subject is currently not possible, either in the Church of Scientology, or in society in general. This is an interesting statement. Earlier, it was stated that the association separates itself from the CoS, and here, it compares itself with the CoS. You can't be separate when you hold another up as a reference. The association has stated that it has embraced a cognition based philosophy and now states that it will be using Scientology to further that cognition based philosophy. Interesting. >>We want to promote a dialogue and to find a better mutual understanding through a maximum of tolerance and respect towards other beliefs, philosophies and religions." I assume that the dialogue that is being promoted is in reference to the association's desire to understand others' beliefs, philosophies and religions. Perhaps it might be of benefit to understand Scientology first. 'Knowing how to know'. Understanding falls under that. This was an interesting statement of intent. Author: Scipher Posted: 2001-11-22 11:44 Hi Virginia, Gawd, I?ve been so busy these last few weeks. Christmas is at hand and I work in the Sales and Marketing department of? well, the company I work for. I?ve only had the time to quickly go over some of the new posts since I last posted. I read your reply to me above and your question, but couldn't find the time to finish the cycle, sorry. I will attempt to do so now, but please forgive me if I sound rushed. I?m at the very beginning of my bridge on HQS with one of the bestest (in my opinion) RO?s here in Moscow (there are 6 or 7 or 8 ROs in Moscow alone). I know that RO aren't taken over as such, but it would frankly be stupid to think that there would not be attempts to infiltrate such an organisation. It is great that there are people like you and Mike that take the time to investigate and correct outnesses, as these are liable to appear, be it intentionally or accidentally. BTW, your work has reached this part of the world too! My CO has posted the url to your site on our Russian language RO mailgroup after I pointed his attention to it. You said above, ask CBR. I played around with that idea. Perhaps I was speaking to myself. Perhaps it worked (which reminds me that I should read the telepathy lecture). I asked him how do I know that I am not being led away from the path that leads Out? How do I tell where alterations can hide. I think he answered: ?Study the tech. KSW. If you do this well, you'll KNOW when something?s wrong, because Scientology flows, there?s logic to it and with understanding you can learn to sense when this logic gets side-tracked. And if this happens, follow it up, check and re-check it, then you would be able to set it right?. I wonder if that was my imagination? Forgive me for the ravings
ARC, Scipher. [ This Message was edited by: Scipher on 2001-11-22 11:52 ] |
