I’m writing in response to your article “The Great Middle Path,” for myself and for all Scientology victims. I also represent “Suppressive Persons” who comprise a major class within the victims population. You’re promulgating faulty and destructive information about us, and I will comment on several of these points below. I’ll probably comment on other things as well that come to mind. I’m open to powwowing, because I’m like Running Deer, eh. Or maybe Ruminating Yak.
According to the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) the way toward light is along the great middle path.
That is, an intelligent, righteous pursuit of truth that bypasses the distractions of the extremes. Neither extreme asceticism nor extreme engagement in entertainments of the flesh leads anywhere but to from below whence one came.
How about neither extreme asceticism nor extreme engagement in entertainments of the flesh, but some other path, like lying, bullying, extorting, or otherwise victimizing people? Do those paths lead somewhere other than anywhere but to from below whence one came, whatever that means?
Observing the Scientology spectrum within such a framework is quite interesting.
That’s funny. There’s no “Scientology spectrum” in Scientology scripture that matches your description. So your Scientology spectrum, whether true or utter bullshit, has to also be squirrel shit.
The extreme, reactionary far right of the spectrum is occupied by David Miscavige. He is so obsessed with maintaining his image as the only one who is really “On Source” that he consistently implements policies (written and oral) that are changing the very nature of the subject for the worse.
I’d more or less agree with that. Cult head Miscavige worked very hard to keep Scientology working as it had worked under Hubbard, and just by doing that Miscavige made Scientology even worse.
Scientology once consistently assisted people in becoming more themselves, more tolerant, more questioning of authority, more independent of thought, more insouciant, more free.
Did it? There’s no proof whatsoever of that claim, and it’s so baseless it simply shouldn’t be made. Because it is impossible to become more oneself, I’ll call your claim that Scientology once consistently assisted people in becoming more themselves BS load no. 1.
Under Miscavige those pursuing the highest levels of spiritual attainment in Scientology are instead becoming less themselves and more what he wants them to be: more intolerant, less capable of independent thought, more serious, and more imprisoned. And all that comes with an ever increasing financial price – so let’s add “more worried about future survival” to the list.
This would be load no. 2. Just as Scientology can’t make people more themselves, it can’t make people less themselves. It’s never grey. People are always themselves. You can say they’re becoming more or less themselves, but that does nothing, in the same way that Scientology does nothing.
Thus, Miscavige has turned the only road to total freedom into the rocky road to virtual captivity.
That’s frigging load no. 3. And you’re calling yourself Sitting Bull. I get it.
The extreme, rebellious far left of the Scientology spectrum is occupied by those who would not be satisfied until every last word of Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard was forever destroyed.
Ah, the straw wogs. Load no. 4. You’re saying what Miscavige says. It’s his paradigm, and it was every Miscavigeite’s paradigm while inside. So, really, nothing has changed. How loyalist!
No, the spectrum of persons is Miscavige on one end and his victims on the other. Apply your middle ground wisdom to that real paradigm with real people, SB. Seems to me that you folks want to continue to victimize Miscavige’s victims but just do it from the great elevated (or enlightened) plateau of middle ground.
The anti-Scientology extreme cut its teeth on the purpose line of restoring freedom of speech and thought on the subject.
Ah, the straw men who-would-not-be-satisfied-until-every-last-word-of-Scientology- Founder-L.-Ron-Hubbard-was-forever-destroyed have become the “anti-Scientology extreme,” with teeth. You’re saying that being anti-Scientology is automatically extreme, right? Is Miscavige’s Joel Phillips op being a good “Loyalist?”
Funny, I wrote to your claimed erstwhile cult’s little dictator in 2006 about his use of the “extremist” label. Miscavige uses the label to facilitate Scientology’s victims’ obliteration, and to incite Scientologists to hate, attack, pursue and even murder their cult’s victims. http://gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/384
You use that label for Scientology’s victims for the same reasons, because Hubbard used such labels – “critics,” “detractors,” “SPs,” “psychos,” “mad dogs, etc.” – for the same reasons. Your “enemies,” whether you are a Miscavige Scientologist, a Freezone Scientologist, a Loyalist Scientologist, or a pretended Scientologist of one group or another, are the same “enemies” Hubbard had – Scientology’s victims.
Those victims with sound intellects, if you haven’t confronted them, which you either willfully or unwillfully but clearly have not, will oppose you folks, because of your words and destructive intentions toward them, or us.
Ironically, that very group is now demanding that everything L Ron Hubbard ever issued be burned in one colossal Spanish Inquisition-esque bonfire.
Load no. 5 — a crock! A straw group demanding a straw Spanish Inquisitionesque bonfire. Your loads help Miscavige against his victims.
Thus, the antis have turned freedom to think and speak into freedom to think and speak as we do.
Thus load no. 6. The “antis” my ass. You serve Miscavige’s ev purps toward his victims. There are no such people among the thinking wogs who oppose Scientology’s lies, abuses and criminality.
Both extremes of the spectrum seem to have settled on one strong point of agreement. That is – getting the other guy is everything.
Load no. 7. Man, what you’re saying is so dishonest. Miscavige vs. your straw extremists is so ugly.
No, Chief, the paradigm, again, is Miscavige and his victimizers vs. Scientology’s victims. And in that paradigm, and real life conflict (not your straw conflict) you support Miscavige. You support Miscavige the liar, Miscavige the abuser, Miscavige the criminal, against his victims.
What neither side seems to understand is that the generalization of their intentions toward one another only empowers the other side.
Oh, I see, you have this piece of knowledge, by which I mean here this bit of BS, that no one on either side understands. Wow, how’s the ser fac tech working for you? I’m saying load no. 8.
But really, in the real world paradigm and conflict, which is Miscavige and his supporters or troops vs. their victims, you say your cult’s victims are generalizing their intentions.
By the way, just like every other Scientologist, you’re projecting. We who are your victims don’t like it. It’s the mental activity of bullies.
My intentions regarding the Miscavige cult are highly specific. I spelled them out several times over the years, and even included them in a letter last year to the little fakir himself: http://gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/389
Those intentions don’t exactly empower your cult head, your cult, or your fellow cultists, do they?
Unfortunately, the folly of these factions comes at the expense of the largely innocent majority.
Load no. 9. Who or what is the largely innocent majority? SF
Wogs. LFBD F/N
Yes, but utter sheepdip. F/N
In the actual paradigm of Miscavige and Scientologists vs. their victims, or your victims, I suppose, you’d naturally love to make those victims be just as follyish as your victimizer faction. And you’d naturally love to have a “reality” in which the real victims of the victimizers victimizing good thinking people are all the people the victimizers haven’t yet victimized. Your kind of thinking, by the way, is becoming known as sociopaths’ logic. Good thinking people see through it.
You’re mocking up straw folly. There’s real folly in that.
You cannot now blame your continued victimizing of good people, your lies about us, your incitement of hatred against us, on Miscavige. That only leaves as their source Hubbard, or your own sociopathic nature — your choice. I suppose, for the Satanists among you, you can say the devil makes you do it; but for Scientologists, Hubbard is the other-determinism that guides their actions, most specifically their Battle Tactics or Fair Game against their victims.
Fortunately, you can jettison Hubbard almost instantly, with great joy, and without the slightest fear. Your own sociopathy may appear to be a much more unconfrontable challenge, but really it’s just as easy, a simple choice repeated through time. Why not give it a try?
David Miscavige loves nothing more than appointing an enemy of Scientology to justify his continued, escalating abuses.
Sure, he loves victiming people. He’s a clear, cruel sociopath. Who or what would like to be like him? LFBD
Scientologists. LFBD F/N Some of you Scientologists, apparently, say you don’t want to be like him, but want to have his power, and, as you acknowledge, to have the same “enemies” as Miscavige. And those are the good thinking wogs you and Miscavige black PR as “extremes” in your spectrum, and “extremists.”
To the degree criticisms are generalized to the subject or even to staff or public, Miscavige gets a pass.
Load nos. 10 and 11. Staff and public all support the cult’s victimizing of its victims. From what you write, so do you, and you appear to also be saying you’re neither staff nor the cult’s public.
If people stopped criticizing the subject of Scientology, not just Miscavige would get a pass, but all his troops or supporters, including you, would get a pass. You know what you can do with your sociopaths’ logic.
He is only too happy to have his own criminal acts hung on innocent people (Scientologists at large) so that he can position himself as their protector.
Load no. 12. Scientologists at large aren’t innocent, as the world judges innocence. They support good people’s victimization. They pay fees, they volunteer, they do what you do, to support the victimization that gets postulated and executed as Miscavige’s command intention. Scientologists at large, moreover, participate directly in his victimization programs and pogroms. When all Scientologists but Miscavige stop victimizing people and stop supporting this victimization of people, then it would be proper or reasonable to stop criticizing all Scientologists but Miscavige.
Miscavige does nothing without massive support from Scientologists at large. These Scientologists at large, as the logical world judges innocence, are far from innocent bystanders.
With that sleight of hand he is encouraged by well-meaning Scientologists to continue fighting wars with unlimited resources at his disposal. His favorite pastime.
Sure, but you’re blaming Miscavige’s willful, at-cause, sociopathic sleight of hand on his war’s victims. Plus, you’re blaming the victims for well-meaning Scientologists’ encouragement or support for DM’s dirty, sick war.
Sure war is his favorite pastime – he’s a sociopath. But Scientology has made war virtually every Scientologist’s favorite pastime; they all win from victimizing their victims. Haven’t you?
On the other side, Miscavige pours gasoline on the critics’ fire by his intolerant, aggressive, and anti-social responses to their hue and cry.
Sure he does – he’s a sociopath. Sociopaths always attack their victims to make them wrong for being their victims. This is universal among Scientologists, and is what you’re doing.
I don’t suppose you’ve cogged that in the Scientology spectrum that has Miscavige with his officers and troops on one end and their victims on the other end, you’re the critic, criticizing both the victimizers and the victims. Your goal, it appears, is not to help the victims, but to replace the head victimizer, take over the victimizing machinery, and keep the victims being victimized.
Any criticism no matter how valid – and the most warranted criticism is always directed at his own conduct – is characterized by Miscavige as “anti-Scientology.”
So what? He’s a sociopath. Plus he and his cult of victimizers fall back on Hubbard policies in scripture that mandate such sociopathic responses to criticism of their lies, abuses and criminality.
Since an SP is incapable of any self-recognition of wrong-doing,
Load no. 13. “Suppressive Persons” are generally good, decent people with good intellects, capable of considerable introspection, and possessing active consciences.
If you were to talk about sociopaths, concerning which the literature is much more scientific, accurate, useful and sane than Hubbard’s and Scientology’s “Suppressive Person” doctrine, you could make sense. But your adherence to the SP doctrine, which is indefensibly evil, makes no sense, except, of course, to make yourself right and others without that “tech” wrong. BFD
instead of correcting his abuses Miscavige steps them up and keeps producing future enemies,
Sure — he’s a sociopath. He’s a sociopath who uses Scientology to serve his sociopathic interests. Anyone can; Scientology facilitates it. And Scientologists virtually universally permit him, and in fact support him.
all the while driving mere critics into the anti-Scientology camp by his efforts to censor and destroy them.
Load no. 14. Who or what are mere critics? X (oops, no read)
Censoring and destroying people makes victims. Victimizing people drives them into the victims camp. Virtually all people who oppose Miscavige and his victimizers know that their opposition makes them greater victims. At the extreme end of Miscavige’s Scientology spectrum are his biggest victims. They’re also your biggest victims. People whom he’s hardly victimized at all are all over the great middle ground. The closer people are to Miscavige in the cult (Mark Rathbun for example) the more they victimize Miscavige’s victims.
To those who enjoy conflict and strife the opposite extremes of the Scientology spectrum are a match made in heaven.
It’s your match made in heaven, a straw match.
The two ends of the Scientology spectrum, and the one reality, are Miscavige and Scientologists on the cause end and their victims on the receipt or effect end. I can see how you’d consider victimizing your victims heavenly.
You’ve projected onto your cult’s victims an enjoyment of the conflict and strife that you and your fellow cultists cause and enjoy. (You’re not claiming that you of all people are at effect are you?)
In the Miscavige and Scientologists vs. their victims conflict, the Scientologists, I think you’d have to agree, can never be the victims, because Hubbard defined Scientologists in Scientology scripture as “not victims.” Ref HCOB 18 July 1959 “Technically Speaking.”
Hubbard didn’t order that Scientologists not be victimizers. In fact he wrote hundreds or thousands of directives in scripture on exactly how Scientologists should victimize people, both other Scientologists and wogs, financially, socially, psychologically and physically.
Spewing generalities is the stock-in-trade of both sides, and those generalities further empower either side.
What generalities? Please list.
What a pile of shit from cows you spew, Sitting Bull!
Deal with the Scientology v. Armstrong case specifically. You’ve been a beneficiary in the injunction, judgment and contract a long time. It would be really dumb to pretend ignorance of the case or of me, of my claims regarding Hubbard, Miscavige, Scientology, and Scientologists or other differentiatable persons, classes, groups, corporations or other entities in the Scientology v. Armstrong war, or of my knowledge, experiences and evidence.
He who goes looking for generalities is likely to find them all over the place.
In the final analysis, those who generalize their attacks on Scientology and Scientologists are Miscavige’s best friends.
This is a cruel, willful lie. Load no. 15. You’re mocking up and attacking straw generalizers; but in doing so specifically attacking Scientology’s and Scientologists’ victims.
Miscavige’s best friends are those who attack Scientology’s victims. Tom Cruise attacks the cult’s victims with all his wealth, power and celebrity, so he’s Miscavige’s true best friend. Cruise gets this into Rolling Stone:
“Some people, well, if they don’t like Scientology, well, then, fuck you.” He rises from the table. “Really.” He points an angry finger at the imaginary enemy. “Fuck you.” His face reddens. “Period.”
DM loves Scientologists like Tom, who say to Scientology’s victims, the Scientologists’ not-imaginary enemies, “Fuck you.” That’s what you’re doing when you attack Scientology’s victims as extremists, or just as undeserving of your sympathy as Miscavige, their victimizer.
By the same token, Miscavige by his penchant for generalizing any valid criticism of his own conduct as “anti-Scientology” is the greatest ally of the anti-Scientologist.
That’s the corollary load no. 16.
In the Scientology v. Armstrong war, I cannot but be anti-Scientology. After all, every Scientologist is anti-Gerry Armstrong. You may honestly be so deranged you believe that because of his sociopathy David Miscavige is my greatest ally, but I honestly believe you know you’re bullshitting, Sitting Bull. No Scientologist is my ally, nor makes himself or herself my ally by further victimizing anyone, and you know it.
Both extremes of the spectrum are busy keeping the innocent many embroiled, diverted and confused.
More BS, SB. Load no. 17. You’re attacking your cult’s victims for embroiling Scientologists in the Scientologists’ victimization of their victims. The Scientological concept of Scientology’s victims “pulling in” their victimization is another example of sociopaths’ logic.
Empowering the extreme minorities only leads the peaceful majority toward darkness.
Load no. 18. Actually empowering your cult’s victims would not lead anyone toward darkness. This is chaos merchant crap.
The light shines upon a place far from the dark extremes of the spectrum.
Load no. 19, but serving the same ev purp. Scientology’s victims don’t lack light shining on them, and you can’t postulate it away with all your sitting and all your bull. It’s you, in fact, in this paradigm that needs to see that light.
Think before lending support to either side of the darkness.
Load no. 20. It’s not darkness, it’s light. And you’re full of it.
If you support Scientology, even if you do nothing more than call yourself a Scientologist, you support the victimizing of the same people Miscavige victimizes.
Think for yourself.
There’s nothing virtuous in thinking for yourself. It can be used for great evil. Sociopaths are highly skilled in that ability, in thinking for themselves.
Let there be light.
Do you think it would go anywhere if you postulated that there be darkness?
Speak the truth now, Chief. None of that forked tongue tech.