It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Mystery_Lady
I think it was meant to be a sort of reformatory school sort of programming... you know like military ones where every single matter in ones life is controlled until te person is broken or fractured... and in that split is where the mind control or molding comes into real play. Such programs dont want people to think though they want mind controlled robots to perform specific tasks or when one says jumps tey arent gonna ask or question how high... as that was already programmed in there, so it becomes do as soon as told.
originally posted by: SpecialSauce
a reply to: TerryDon79
No man, not an insult, shemales and transexuals and transgenders are people. You know if you googled Jesus and perfume you will find he wore perfume in 2 different passages? He also kissed Judas. A guy who wears perfume and kisses another man may not be what your ideal man would be but other people would swear he's the son of God and that is beautiful. One of my best friend's names is Terry.
Cheek kissing is a ritual or social kissing gesture to indicate friendship, perform a greeting, to confer congratulations, to comfort someone, to show respect, or to indicate sexual or romantic interest. Double Cheek Kissing in the Italian families is a ritual of "I have your back and you have mine", it's the holy Grail of ultimate loyalty. Then when approaching the head of the family a Double kissed on the cheek starting with the right side, and then it was custom to kiss the hand and the ring. Starting the double kiss on the left was considered the Judas Kiss.
Cheek kissing is very common in Southern, Central and Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and Latin America. It is not as common in English-speaking Canada and the United States, Asia and Northern Europe. However, there are some exceptions in the United States and Canada, including ethnic enclaves, such as Italian, French, or Hispanic neighborhoods, as well as, Quebec, Louisiana and Miami.
He claims that he has discovered the "single source of mental derangement" (Hubbard 6). However, in a disclaimer on the frontispiece of the book, we are told that "Scientology and its sub-study, Dianetics, as practiced by the Church...does not wish to accept individuals who desire treatment of physical illness or insanity but refers these to qualified specialists of other organizations who deal in these matters." The disclaimer seems clearly to have been a protective mechanism against lawsuits for practicing medicine without a license; the author repeatedly insists that dianetics can cure just about anything that ails you. He also repeatedly insists that dianetics is a science. Yet, just about anyone familiar with scientific texts will be able to tell from the first few pages of Dianetics that the text is no scientific work and the author no scientist. Dianetics is a classic example of a pseudoscience.
There is other evidence that dianetics is not a science. For example, his theory of mind shares little in common with modern neurophysiology and what is known about the brain and how it works. According to Hubbard, the mind has three parts. "The analytical mind is that portion of the mind which perceives and retains experience data to compose and resolve problems and direct the organism along the four dynamics. It thinks in differences and similarities. The reactive mind is that portion of the mind which files and retains physical pain and painful emotion and seeks to direct the organism solely on a stimulus-response basis. It thinks only in identities. The somatic mind is that mind, which, directed by the analytical or reactive mind, places solutions into effect on the physical level" (Hubbard, 39).
originally posted by: SpecialSauce
a reply to: ColdWisdom
You're just spewing religious hate. They can use their money how they want to, they don't require your permission. What experience do you have in rehabilitation? What makes you the expert, because you read an article and parrot it as fact?
originally posted by: TerryDon79
There's plenty of evidence to support that Scientology is nothing but a group of con artists, murderers, rapists, pseudoscience pushers and a whole list of other things.
Anyways just analyze a standard Scientology "Personality Test", its hardly different than any standard Psychiatric "Mental Health Assessment Test". There's simply no getting around this fact, so right out the gates its hypocrisy at best.
The staple of modern Scientology recruitment is the Personality Test, or to give it its more formal name, the Oxford Capacity Analysis (OCA). It also appears sometimes to be (or to have been) referred to as the American Personality Analysis or APA.
The OCA has been used as a recruiting tool by Scientology since 1953. What Is Scientology? (1992 edition) says of the test:
"This test accurately measures the preclear's estimation of ten different personality traits. These rise markedly in auditing, reflecting the preclear's gains. Preclears report being calmer, more stable, more energetic and more outgoing as a direct result of auditing and scores on the OCA furnish corroborative data.
A vital tool in Expanded Dianetics is the Oxford Capacity Analysis. An important use of this profile is to inprove specific personality traits with Expanded Dianetics procedures. The OCA helps locate deep-seated pockets of aberration which can then be addressed and erased with these precise auditing techniques."
The questions on the OCA sheet are strangely reminiscent of the "Security Checks" which Scientologists have to do and, in several instances, share the oddity and leading nature of Security Check questions; it is not impossible (though probably unprovable) that Sec. Checks developed from the OCA:
3. Do you browse through railway timetables, directories or dictionaries just for pleasure?
6. Do you get occasional twitches of your muscles, when there is no logical reason for it?
30. Do you enjoy telling people latest scandal [sic] about your associates?
59. Do you consider the modern prisons without bars system "doomed to failure"?
105. Do you rarely suspect the actions of others?
124. Do you often make tactless blunders?