Peacemaker Thanx for that perfect explanation!

Tranette, I think that anyone who has been in Scientology, or is a seasoned observer, understands that they and their various front-group tentacles are practiced and polished at taking people in.

It occurs to me that while we’ve now discussed that people here can be suspicious of newcomers because Scientology sometimes sends it OSA operatives, you may also want to take into consideration that means that their intelligence operations know what has gone on here. Whichever scientologists you deal with, will almost certainly have been instructed to handle you, first by trying to convince you that you’ve been mislead and misinformed, and then by trying either inducements or even threats.

One point I would suggest that you and others consider regarding any involvement with Scientology and its front groups, are that their staff and particularly Sea Org (who may not be wearing uniforms) are essentially ongoing victims of human trafficking, working under abusive conditions that would violate “fair trade” principles just for buying coffee or clothes. Staff generally get paid under $50 per week with no benefits, and are expected to work up to 100 hours per week; Sea Org are likely to earn less and work more under forced labor camp conditions, are subject to prison camp type punishments, and if they are foreign workers will have had their passports confiscated and will be threatened with jail for trying to go to the authorities (the TWTH principle against false witness, doesn’t apply to the scientologists tasked with “recovering” fleeing staff). Yes, Scientology actually has the gall to organize and staff “human rights” events, including ones focusing on human trafficking, with these human trafficked and abused workers – Hubbard even said that “incredulity” benefitted them, because people wouldn’t believe that a “church” would do what they were actually doing.

Another point to consider is that some of any money going to or raised for those front groups – including for purchases of materials – will end up back in Scientology’s coffers through large licensing and management fees they have to send “uplines.” When it gets back to their higher-level entities like CST and IAS, it funds things like harassment of enemies, including former members and independent practitioners of Scientology (the principle of respect for religious beliefs doesn’t apply if it involves their own “squirrels” and “apostates”), and even women who have gone to law enforcement to report sex crimes:

https://tonyortega.org/2018/08/25/video-danny-masterson-accuser-confronts-stalker-outside-her-los-angeles-home/

I knew about the entities I have mention working with over the years. I meet them through reputable partnering agencies in the community. I had no reason to doubt their character and integrity.

As for the church, I never heard anything until now… I’m open and listening.

Moving forward, I will be speaking with Pastor Rice, watching and reading

Swept clear of the FH Kludge or the stuff from the Apollo?

Thank you, I’m definitely interested in learning more, tomorrow I began to look over the links, buy start off with Clear then go from there. I will have my laptop. This phone is not good ..but I truly thank everyone..

Hello, thank you so much, I look forward to speaking to Pastor Rice. I reached out to a friend who’s active in the Clearwater community. I look forward to speaking with her about Pastor Rice. I truly thank you for the clarity.

That’s a good article. I can’t wait for Season 3!

I am waiting as well!

What a truly lovely person you are! I too have found myself often times in the same boat as yourself because I was always a “soft touch”. As years went by I learned the hard way that every thing isn’t always as it seems.

Dr Phil McGraw wrote a book entitled “Life Code” & I highly recommend it to everyone. It gives information on basically the way life is NOW, how to be mindful of “baiters” those who KNOW how to get what they want through not so nice ways. This book is a wake up call for ANYONE, including those “still in” and those now “out”.

There truly are needy people in the world, after much research & blog searching & looking into who actually IS “the real deal”, you’ll be able to direction your truly lovingly good intentions much more wisely.

I wish many good things for you.

Tranette, I hope it’s clear that it’s now well understood that you came here with good intentions.

Whether it is money, goods, or assistance, I still think you will find that Scientology never gives anything away unless it in some sense “buys” them what they want in terms of positive public relations or acceptance in the local community – and thus they never engage in actual charity in the full, traditional meaning of the term. That’s based on a Scientology doctrine called “exchange” under which they believe it is wrong to do something for someone who can’t repay in some equal measure; they believe that the disadvantaged and even the ill and handicapped have “pulled it in” and should be left to their own devices, and may just need to die and reincarnate in “better condition” – and that to help the process along it may even be necessary “to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.” In a piece of Hubbard’s Scientology “scripture” used in training staff and executives, called Responsibilities of Leaders, he gives many examples (often, like this, fancifully distorted to support his worldview) of how to act ruthlessly when it is seen as necessary means to an end, in the vein of this one, demonstrating their attitude towards the sick and the poor:

“A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.”

As for TWTH, I don’t think it’s as much a “replica” of traditional moral and ethical codes, as a deceptively revisionist, moral relativist one. That would be something in particular that you might want to talk to Pastor Rice about – I’m pretty sure he has some good insight into what is really going on with it. Really, would you tell a young child “don’t tell harmful lies” or just “don’t lie”? Why add the equivocation about “harmful,” which common sense tells us would lead even a child to find exceptions and justify telling lies – perhaps even ones that actually turned out to be harmful? Hmm….