Saturday, 12 September 2015

Internet bullies who don't know they are bullying


Some internet bullying is obvious - the teenage girl whose facebook 'friends' unite to say how horrible she is, maybe how fat, maybe how she should just hang herself and give the world a break. 
It's an awful thing to do, especially as some victims have wound up committing suicide.
But there is another form of internet bullying, and most who pass these things on do so without ever thinking that it is a form of bullying.



 So if you don't 'share' that makes you 'afraid to make a stand' and presumably uncaring besides.

 'I hope I was right about the ones who will repost.'
So the ones who don't repost are awful people? 

The sweet little hearts make no difference.  This, too,  is a form of bullying.

Was it sincere in the beginning?  Possibly, or possibly just another of those memes that are used to harvest facebook names.


 'I'll be watching.'

        Enough said.

  "Let's see who has a strong heart.'

And if we don't choose to share, then, again, I guess we are weak and presumably uncaring besides.

'Have the guts to repost this.'

No, but I do have the courage to call it what it is - internet bullying.


This one is even more explicit -
'I want to see who is brave enough...'

 'I'm pretty sure I know the ones that will.'

Another little piece of blackmail.

The blackmail phrase is nearly always used.
'I know the ones who will,' or 'I'll be watching,' or something similar.

It is bullying.  Please let's stop this nonsense.

To the ABC - facts please.

To the ABC - especially the ABC. but every other news outlet as well.  You are supposed to be the news.  So please give us the news - that is facts, not your agenda! 
The other day on TV, someone was arguing that the bias shown in our media really didn't matter 'because everyone knew who was Fairfax and who was Murdoch.' But actually, no, we don't, and what is more - we shouldn't have to! News outlets are supposed to report the news - FACTS - not pursue an agenda, usually left wing, as most journalists seem to be very left wing.
In Australia, a prime offender is the ABC. One used to regard the ABC as by far, the best of the news outlets. Now it is close to the worst.

Something on this morning's ABC 24, by way of an example - that there was a 'massive' demonstration in support of the 'refugees' swarming into Europe, with a passing reference at the very end to a 'counter demonstration.' On the internet, I see a report of very large demonstrations against the indiscriminate admission of hordes of immigrants.

I have not seen a news bulletin that reported that the immigrants had rioted, had thrown faeces at the authorities simply for trying to achieve some semblance of order, had chanted 'Allahu Akbar' as they forced themselves onto a train, had been fighting amongst each other, Turks against Kurds, for instance, had even thrown away the food rations handed to them.

Instead, we have an outcry because they were 'fed like animals.' To support this allegation, it was shown that they were divided into pens, (not confined to the pens) and as there was no orderly queue, packets of food were tossed to some at the back. It is not unusual to use such 'pens' as a way of sorting large numbers of people who are waiting for something. It actually reminded me very much of last November, when I was one of thousands of people, most elderly, waiting and waiting and waiting to get onto a cruise ship. Except that they queued, they didn't attack each other, and there were no rations available/ (though a few elderly ladies on the point of fainting from the hours of standing in the heat were given drinks of water.)

So what am I saying? That news outlets should STOP censoring the news. The public wants the facts, not what some conceited journalist or news editor thinks it acceptable for us to know.

Wednesday, 5 August 2015

Hiroshima - 'those bombs were well placed, and they ended the war.'

70th Anniversary of Hiroshima.

History is being re-written.  Some are now portraying the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an unforgivable crime committed by the is Americans, while the crimes of the Japanese are being glossed over. Instead of re-writing history, we should look at what was actually happening, and the best way is through the eyes of those who were suffering though it. 

'But Sir: the Autiobiography of a Twentieth Century Australian' 
Merv McRae
originally published 1987,  republished 2014.

This excerpt is from Chapter 14. The author was one of thousands of POWs, Australian, British, Dutch, and Americans. He and his brother Dunc, had survived the Death Railway, and were back in Changi prison.   
The Death Railway had a 50% death rate from starvation, over-work, disease and beatings.

We had been working on the aerodrome for some time;  it was a long walk,  and hard work when we got there,  with many bashings from the Japs.  One day two hundred of us were sent out on a last working party,  not far from Singapore city.  There was another party of two hundred working not far away.  Our task was to dig large holes,  twelve feet deep by twelve feet square,  and there were six men to dig each hole.  What were they for?  we wondered,  and I remember one man saying that if the Allies landed we would be shot and buried in these holes.  I didn’t like that idea at all,  and I well remember telling him not to be stupid,  but he was spot on.  It was found after the war that if the Allies had landed in Malaya we were all to be shot and disposed of.  There had also been a proposed date for a landing on Japan,  so it was the Bomb which saved us and untold thousands of others from extinction.  If the bombs hadn’t been dropped,  who knows how long the war might have lasted?  There wouldn’t have been one P.O.W. get home,  and thousands of soldiers,  and as many civilians again would have perished. 

   I have just read a book written by James Bradley called "Towards the Setting Sun,"  in which he quotes some figures.  As he had had access to official records which I haven’t,  I obtained permission from him to use some of his figures.  The two A-bombs killed about 170,000 people,  and as opposed to this over 102,300 Allied P.O.W.s and coolies died as a direct result of the dreadful treatment handed out by the Japs on the railway.  To this must be added all the others who died in the camps in Borneo and other places from the inhuman treatment, and also the mental and physical suffering of the survivors ever since.  How many more would have died had it not been for the bombs?

  James Bradley also confirms that had an Allied landing in fact taken place the big holes we were digging were for us and the civilian internees.  A landing date had been set for November 1945 on Japan,  and had it taken place the Japs were prepared to lose ten million men in opposing such a landing.  The Allies instead dropped those two bombs which ended the war,  thus liberating 14,400 Australian P.O.W.s,  37,500 British and Indian troops,  as well as 16,912 Americans. 

  I feel that if the present generation had more knowledge of this side of the story they may understand why we must go along with the advanced technology of the Americans,  but instead we find these very vocal minorities getting good coverage in the media.  If Australia doesn’t co-operate with the Americans now,  how will anyone have the hide to ask for their help next time?  Owing to nuclear weapons we have more or less had peace for forty years,  but I wonder how much longer we will be lucky.  Everyone wants peace,  but not at any price,  and the lesson that to stop a bully one must fight,  should be learned in the school yard. 

  If countries such as Germany and Japan are able to gather their powerful forces and go all out on aggression as they did (both used the "kinghit" tactic and bombed cities without a thought for the civilians)  then they must expect something back.  Japan had the chance to come to terms before both these bombs were dropped but refused,  so I blame the Japanese government entirely for the suffering their people had to endure.  The Japanese and German peoples were behind their governments to a certain extent,   and so could not be held entirely blameless for what happened in the finish.  The Italians,  on the other hand,  were never right behind Mussolini, and stopped as soon as they decently could.  Mussolini was never more looked up to than when he was dead, being murdered by a political faction and strung up by the heels.    He was really in disgrace with the Italian people,  who even destroyed all the statues of him he’d had placed all over Rome.  So to all the people who say the bomb should not have been dropped,  all I can say is they must have been well out of it somewhere where the war would not affect them.  Those bombs were well placed,  and they ended the war. 


'Those bombs were well placed,  and they ended the war.'
See the scroll to the left.
These are the men of one unit, who were ordered to surrender.  They were treated poorly from the start, but the worst was when they were marched off to work on the 'Death Railway.' Fewer than half survived.  The crosses next to the names are those who did not survive.

If the bomb had not been dropped,  none would have survived.

The unit

This book can be purchased from most online booksellers.   Use coupon code YD75A  to get it free.  (Expires: August 10, 2015)  

A few individuals mentioned in the book:

Jimmy Burr,  teacher,  Ch 4.

Curly Kirk from Ballarat,  Ch 11, and a mention of his death in Ch. 13.

Sunda Singh,  Indian trader,  Ch 9.

Major Kidd, Ch 12

Tom Chowns, and Nora Chowns,  spoken of  in Ch 12.

Lew Lemke and Ted Burrage,  a  mention in Ch 13. 

Major Hunt, Ch 13

Frank Lebas,  Allan Scott, two who died, Ch 13.  Also Jock, a Scotsman.

Horace Roberts,  a  mention in Chapters 13 & 16.

Jimmy Andrews,  Ch 16


Lance Basset,  a mention in Ch 16 in relation to sheep breeding.

Rob Jamieson,  Stony Point station, a mention in Ch 16


Significant events mentioned

The depression years, ch 7.

The Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,  Ch 14. 

The beginnings of the breed of sheep known as the Zenith.  Ch 16.



Sunday, 19 July 2015

'Reclaim Australia' is NOT RACIST!

Racism – as defined by the Australian Oxford Dictionary – theory that human abilities are defined by race.  
Note that it has nothing to do with criticising culture and nothing to do with religion. 
And yet ‘racist’ has become a pejorative term used to discredit anyone seeking to speak of real problems that have to do with culture, and to shut down all discussion of religion, even those when certain religious practices are against the customs and ethics of Western nations such as the forced marriage of young girls. 

Real racism?  I have heard no real racism for decades, and then it was only in reference books – differences in ability as measured by IQ tests. As I recall, Asians tended to measure around 15 points higher than Caucasians who measured around 15 points higher than American Negroes.  That was Professor Hans J. Eysenck. One of his books was ‘The Inequality of Man’ first published  in 1975. As I recall, Eysenck was vilified for reporting the findings, and for a while, lost credibility. Whether or not he was simply and truthfully reporting the results of tests he made was beside the point.

There is a movement now – ‘Reclaim Australia.’   
Here is what they say:

WE are losing our democratic freedom to speak openly and honestly, we are losing our voice and our NATIONAL character. I am an Australian. If I say I love Australia and Australian values I am now labelled a “racist”.

If I criticise Islam I am labelled both a “racist” and a “bigot”.
Since when did speaking the truth about an ideology or practice become illegal in Australia. When did we agree to stop called a spade—“a spade”?
Political correctness cannot take the place of informed discussion or the Truth.
Democracy requires open and free debate. 18C closes down my right to say the truth about Islam because the truth might offend Islam. Yet...

We are not the terrorists.
We are not the beheaders.
We are not the bombers.

Australia is a nation of many people groups with the majority being caucasion and Christian. We have successfully embraced multi-ethnicity for decades...Yet, all of a sudden we have to make all these changes to the way we do “Australian” in order to cater to an minority who refuse to integrate anyway.
If Islam can't cope with how we do “Australian” well then perhaps Islam needs to move along to somewhere where they are not so offended by the locals.
We love Australia, our Values and want our freedom back to be the “Australian”.

And What they call for:

  • Equality and tolerance of all races and religions—which includes Aussies and Christianity, our holidays and celebrations, Christmas and Easter and ANZAC day.
  • Equality at law, no more “cultural considerations”. It is one law for all.
  • Food free of blessings, religious taxes or Islamic Sharia Law Certification (Halal)
  • Freedom of speech—“offence” is a concept derived from Islam and as such is alien to the foundations of our legal system and our practice of democracy and needs removing.
  • Equality of gender—our women are equal. There can be no diminishing of legal rights forced segregation; female genital mutilation (FGM); Sex Trafficking (child brides); Wife beating because they are the ways of Islam. They have no place here in Australia.

 In no way,  in NO way, is this racist.  

Typical members of this movement are these: 

Photo from Reclaim Australia facebook page.
It was a meeting in Cairns.
Note how many of them have grey hair. They are not violent activists, but  overwhelmingly, they are useful citizens who’ve made good lives for themselves and are disturbed at seeing how things have changed. These are the ones who’ve seen Italians, Greeks, Yugoslavs, Ukrainians, Dutch and all the others arrive soon  after the second world war. And they’ve seen them assimilate, with few problems.

And then there were the Vietnamese after the Vietnam war. Some problems, but I do not remember a single demonstration against them.

But now there are problems, big problems, and to speak out about them is to invite hysterical cries of ‘racism!’


'Freedom, Equality, Democracy' 
How can this be labelled 'Anti-Islam' or 'Racist?'
Sounds fine to me.
Islamic racism?  That would refer to the fact that some Muslims think they should murder 'infidels.' And even that is not racism.  Infidels can be of any race, but the Koran tells Muslims that they are destined to Hell.   Not racism, but it is hatred and intolerance.  It would be nice if we could do away with hatred and intolerance.
But who is being intolerant?  Australia has been generous. We have taken in many refugees, generally without taking into much consideration whether that individual will be a good and useful Australian. We have been tolerant, but even the most tolerant nation will, eventually, start to push against a perceived threat.  This is not Xenophobia. We have lost lives to Islamic intolerance, in Australia itself, and many more in other countries.
Last Easter, 'Reclaim Australia' held some rallies - rallies against the Islamisation of Australia, rallies against losing the essential nature of Australia.  The participants were few and almost all peaceful. They were respectable citizens.
But who met them?  Violent thugs. Not respectable citizens, not at all peaceful.  They were outnumbered, spat upon, abused.

Easter, 2015
 Above pic from the Sunday Age, April 5th, 2015, accompanying a report by John Elder.
I am surprised that any were willing to risk their own safety with new rallies, but some people are very brave.  There were more rallies on the 18th July, 2015, and more planned for the 19th. It would be so nice if the media reported on them fairly, but I do not expect they will.  Political correctness has gone far beyond what is reasonable, and it is more fashionable among those who like to think of themselves as the 'intelligentsia' to attack those who do not follow the PC line.  Often, they act as if Australia needs to apologise for all that is wrong with the world,  instead of remembering that we, the Australians, have made it into a country that refugees strive to enter.

From various reports, if they are to be believed, there may have been violent thugs on the 'Reclaim Australia' side as well.  There are other groups, some truly anti-Islam, and probably, even some extremists on that side.  'Reclaim Australia' and a few of the newspaper reports, say that on Saturday, the thugs were really after members of UPF, (United Patriots Front).  And when they were not available for abuse and the police prevented them from hurting the 'Reclaim Australia' people, they turned on the police and their horses. Some members of the UKF said that the other side were tweeting to others to bring ball bearings in order to hurt the police horses.

A telling picture from the Reclaim Australia facebook site

I saw an early news report on Channel 10 that Saturday; it showed the police being abused by those attacking Reclaim Australia. Just a half hour later, there was another report, (same news bulletin)   but that time, it said that the violence was on both sides.  Had it been re-written to adhere to left-wing conventional thinking?

One-sided reporting is part of the problem.  The ordinary citizen, those respectable citizens everywhere, ones like those at the meeting in Cairns, (pic above)  are being ignored and muzzled.
LNP MP George Christensen made a speech at the  Mackay Reclaim Australia rally.
It is worth reading.
I found it on the blog of Andrew Bolt -
Bolt says: 

"Christensen has been maligned and attacked by journalists and human rights commissions for giving it, but tell me exactly what he says that is offensive - more offensive than the message of those who tried to scream him down yesterday:"
The speech:
We all have a voice: Notwithstanding our choice to use it or not. Notwithstanding the best efforts of those who would render us silent. We have a voice – not a voice of hatred, violence, and extremism – but a voice of warning, defiance, and of hope. Our voice does not go unchallenged but that is the beauty and appeal of the free and open democratic society our voice speaks out to defend.
Long before he became President of the United States, Ronald Reagan was a voice for the American people. At a Republican convention in 1964, he said:
“There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.”
Our voice says: “We will not surrender.” We will not sit idly by and watch the Australian culture and the Australian lifestyle that we love and that is envied around the world be surrendered and handed over to those who hate us for who we are and what we stand for.
When Ronald Reagan spoke those words, he warned against the threat of Soviet Russia and those words apply equally now to the threat of Islamic extremism and its complicit defenders. Reagan said: “Every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement” and yet that is the political and social environment that confronts us today – appeasement.
When I accepted the invitation to be a voice here today, I was disappointed (but not entirely surprised) by a tidal wave of hyperventilation and confected outrage on social media, in the mainstream media, and from capital city commentators. Labor’s Shadow Minister for Immigration, Richard Marles said today’s rally was synonymous with racism.
Our State Labor Member for Mackay described my comments in accepting your invitation to speak as appalling, shameful, ignorant, and hateful. In doing so, she has reflected on you and your fellow like-minded citizens. A petition urged the Prime minister to prevent me from even attending today. The apologists of the left, the do-gooders, and the politically correct crowd said I should not address you because you were a crowd of: racists, bigots, Islamophobes, extremists, white supremicists, skinheads, and Nazis.
But I look out at the crowd and that’s not what I see. I see Mums and Dads who love their country – the Australian culture and the Australian lifestyle. I see everyday hard-working families who want their kids to enjoy the same freedoms that were enjoyed by the generations that came before them. Some of the freedoms Australians hold most dear are freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In this country, I am proud of the fact that someone who has a particular belief can hold that view without fear of intimidation. They can practice their faith – whether they are Christian, Buddhist, or Muslim – at a church, a temple, or a mosque – without fear of intimidation. And the full force of the law can, and should, come down on anyone who does try to intimidate them.
Likewise, we have a freedom to criticise. While it is not my cup of tea to criticise religions, I see that people criticise Christianity every day without fear of retribution, violence, or being called a Christophobe or a racist. In fact, we have seen many examples in the past year alone of Christians being slaughtered for no reason other than the fact that they are Christian. But in this country, that should not be tolerated.
In this country, we also enjoy the right to peaceful assembly. We all have the right to be here today, protesting in a peaceful way against the dangers of radical Islam and the culture of appeasement that allows radical extremism to fester. That culture of appeasement to radical Islam dictated that I should not speak here today for fear of giving you credibility – as if your voice would otherwise have no value.

The right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of religion, the right to feel proud of our nation. These are rights worthy of defending and they are rights about which we need to be eternally vigilant. Last month marked the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta – the charter agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede on the 15th of June 1215. The sentiments of that document underpin the free and democratic western societies that have delivered the most modern, free, and most appealing societies in the world. But we, as beneficiaries of that society must be ever-vigilant against threats – both internal and external to our freedom and democracy.

We must not ignore the fact that there is another world view. We can not stick our heads in the sand and pretend there is not an alternate world view that is opposed to democracy and freedom. And we must not confuse that ideology with religion. Islamism is a political system whereby everything that happens must fit under the laws of radical Islam. It is not just people in Iraq, Lebanon, or Syria that subscribe to this world view. This is no longer something that is ‘over there’; it’s not a threat that only exists on foreign shores; it’s a threat that is within our midst as well. There are those within our shores who sympathise and even support and actively recruit for Islamic State. These people have declared war on Western civilisations and we would be foolishly na├»ve to think we are not at war.
The spread of repressive ideologies under our very noses right here in our own country has already begun.  I refer to the slow spread of a Sharia-style dispensation of justice which is quietly executed in Australian mosques on a daily basis. It’s a form of ‘justice’ that perpetuates the oppression and abuse of women and yet we don’t dare speak of it because we will be instantly attacked as “racists”. It’s sad to see that those who wish to take a stand against the tyranny of Islamic extremism, the ideals of Islamism, are accused of being racist, bigoted or intolerant.
Yesterday, the leader of the Rent-A-Protestor crowd of Flinders University students, James Vigas was quoted by the ABC as saying people attending Reclaim Australia in Adelaide: “Don’t like Muslims, they don’t like refugees, they don’t like gay and lesbian people, they don’t like trade unionists, they don’t like women.” This comes from someone defending extremists who want to kill non-Muslims, throw gay people off tall buildings, and deny women the most basic of human rights. Reclaim Australia is about none of those things and, in fact, opposes exactly those things. Rather ironically, all the traits these so-called “anti-racism” protestors complain about lie at the very heart of the extremists they protect – the very traits Reclaim Australia is rallying against.
Certainly, as with any movement, there are fringe dwellers who seek to pervert the intentions of others, such as the Neo-Nazi skinheads that turned up in rallies in capital cities. Neo-Nazi skinheads are fellow travellers of the extreme Islamic movement because they share so many of the same hate-filled values. Nazi ideology, like Islamism (Political Islam), offers no right to freedom of speech, no right to association, hatred of the Jewish people and a hatred of democracy in general.
It is extremism of any kind that we must guard against. It is ordinary folk, like those of us here today, who must speak up. It is we who must not give in to the bullying and the intimidation and speak without fear to our friends and family about our freedoms, our culture, our lifestyle, and the threat radical extremism brings to those freedoms. We must refuse to abandon thousands of years of civilisation for the sake of political correctness.
I would like to conclude by returning to Ronald Reagan’s historic speech and applying it to the defence of Western Civilisation. He said: “We’ll preserve for our children this – the last best hope of man on earth – or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.”
The choice is ours. The voice is ours. Thank you for allowing me to share in your voice today.


Tuesday, 26 May 2015

Seeing into the future

On the news this morning, there was talk of stripping citizenship from bastard Islamists as well as  talk of tightening citizenship requirements... I saw nicely into the future when I wrote the fourth and final book of the Shuki Series.

One of the relevant quotes. 
This part of the book was written in 2013, before the rise of Daesh or  ISIS. 

On Australia Day, January, 2015, the women and girls of Shuki's family became Australian citizens. Laleh was already an Australian citizen as she'd been born in Australia. Separately, and unknown to Shuki and his family, Meriam also became an Australian citizen.   

For Meriam it had not been as easy as it had been for the others. Her past connections to a radical Islamic group, some of them Jihadists, counted against her. She'd had to show that she no longer had contact with them, and she'd been closely examined as to her current loyalties. Dual citizenship was no longer allowed. Like other countries, Australia had been experiencing the consequences of conflicting loyalties. Nearly seventy people were refused citizenship that year, mostly because the requirement that an applicant had to be 'of good character' had been strengthened and was now being enforced. They were no longer allowing appeals, and Legal Aid was only available to citizens.

There were more changes pending. Not just in Australia, but almost all Western countries were toughening their requirements for citizenship. Radical Muslims no longer openly stated that Sharia Law had to be imposed on their host nations and any immigrant suspected of acting illegally, whether by importing contraband or by supporting terrorism, was far more likely to be deported. Refugees could still be granted provisional asylum in some countries, but were a lot less likely to be granted citizenship. Some called it xenophobia, while others pointed to the poor record of refugees from certain countries, and called it sense.

In other parts of the book, Shuki advocates removing religion from schools - all religions from all schools.  In the book, I had the process starting in around 2012 in Australia, earlier in other parts of the world. With the influence of the highly respected Shuki Bolkiah,  Daesh (or ISIS) did not happen. What a shame it is only fiction. 

On the other hand, a problem much more serious had to be faced - the pandemics, inevitable because of the much too high population and the ease of travel.

Where the first pandemic started

                                              Is this part seeing into the future?  I hope not. 

My books can be purchased from Smashwords or Amazon or other online booksellers.



Scientology - taking your money, pretending to be a religion.

For a time, the 'Church' of Scientology was illegal in various states of Australia. Unfortunately, it is now not only legal, but has the tax exempt status of other religions, both true religions and other pretend religions.

Its chief reason for being appears to take as much money as possible from credulous people.  I could never understand how anyone could be so foolish as to be drawn in. Below is one person's account, and it is no longer so hard to understand. It is a direct copy of a post from the informative blog of Rob Robinson, who has kindly given me permission to reproduce it. 

To read in its full original version (complete with relevant graph)  go to:

The Making of a Cult Member

Posted on by RobRobinson

 It is really very simple.  And there are Universal laws that apply. Do you remember the old stories about Vampires and Demons?  You know whether your windows and doors are opened or closed, they can’t come in unless you give them permission. So you say, “Fine, I’ll never give them permission”.  The thing that you don’t know is that they don’t play fair.  If you even give them a moment to talk to you, you are doomed.

That is sort of the way it is in the Church of Scientology. Make no mistake,  once you have let them in, (which means walked into an Org, took the Personality Test, and bought your first service), they have you and they will suck you dry.  They will steal your life, your will, and if you let them, your soul.

Now I don’t know anyone who ever woke up in the morning and said, “Hey!  I think I will go out and join a cult today”.  But, they might say, “Hey!  I got this offer to take a free personalty test. It’s a $500.00 value!  I think I will do that today”.  If you were watching this on T.V.  You would be yelling at this guy, trying to tell him  about the Vampire, but like all movies on T.V. they can’t hear you. How do I know this?  For 7 years I was the Vampire that would sucker you into the cave with promises all of of your desire fulfilled and riches beyond your imagination (yeah I know, mea culpa). And if you did find out that I had not told you the truth, it was too late.  You have already joined the undead.

I was in charge of the division that is responsible for bringing new people into Scientology and getting them signed up on their first services.  Usually they were Life Improvement courses that sold for anywhere from $55.00 to $75.00 including course materials.  Here is the way it would go.

You walk into the Org. (short for Organization).  The receptionist meets you and you say that you are here to take the free personality test.  (Originally the American Personalty test, the name was later changed to the Oxford Capacity Analysis, to lend it some authenticity.  Not because it comes from Oxford). The receptionist leads you back to a quiet place and sits you down at a desk.  She gives you the test booklet and an answer sheet.  It has two hundred multiple choice questions.  You are done in about an hour, and then she takes your materials from you and leads you back out to the lobby to wait for your results.  The lobby is usually either part of the Book store, or right next to it so you can gaze at all of the pretty books by Hubbard.

I would come out shortly and escort you back to my office and sit you down in a chair across the desk from me.  I would then place the graph down in front of you and raise my eyes to heaven and say, “Oh my, this is not good at all”.

(graph not shown) 

You are sitting there thinking that it doesn’t look all that bad to you.  After all, almost half of it is above the line.  It is not like it was all on the bottom.  That is what you tell me.  And that is what I was waiting for.  I tell you those good points are part of the problem.  That I would rather have all of your points under the line.  And I go one to explain why.  By the time I am done you have a tear or two and you ask me what you can do about it.  I tell you that Scientology has just the right course for your problem.  I sign you up and take you and your money to someone who takes your money and prints up your receipt.  Then I take you to the course room and introduce you to your course supervisor.

These are very short courses, usually 3 to 5 nights, and they are designed to help you solve specific problems.  And surprisingly, the data in them makes sense.  At the end of the course, you actually see that not only do you have this problem but there are steps you can take to solve this problem.  You start to feel good about it, maybe for the first time in years.

You have finished the check sheet  and have been signed off by the supervisor.  Then you are asked if you would like to write up your success on this course.  You say sure and tell just a little about what you learned and how you feel.  The Supervisor then calls a halt to everyone and tells all that you have just finished your course.  Everyone applauds and congratulates you.  You then go down to qual and they ask you if you liked the course, you say yes.  Then they ask you if you would like others to feel the way you do right now.  Of course, you say.

Feeling pretty good about yourself now aren’t you?  Good.  Let’s go over and see the registrar. (Scientology sales person).  Their job is to take you down a peg and make you see that although you have solved this problem (temporarily), it is not a permanent fix.  To make it permanent you will really need to take this series of courses.  Yeah, they cost more, but you really do want to feel this way all the time, forever, don’t you.  Of course you do.  Good just sign here.  You go back out and pay for your course and then you go to the book store and buy your course materials.  Then you go to a real course room.  This supervisor is nice also but she/he gives you a list of rules that you are expected to follow.

You see how it goes.  Ruin you, build you up.  Ruin you, build you up again.  What you have not learned and hopefully will never learn is that we have all been trained and drilled on doing this, with only one thing in mind.  Getting you on to your next service.

The very first thing you see when you open your course pack is a policy letter written by L. Ron Hubbard. It is called Keeping Scientology Working, Series 1.  Every course pack you will ever open for the rest of your Scientology life will start with these words.  If you wish to read the whole thing, you can click here.  Basically what it is telling you is that you are now a Scientologist.  Here is the pertinent excerpt:

When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of
the universe-never permit an “open-minded” approach.  If they’re going to
quit let them quit fast.  If they enrolled, they’re aboard; and if they’re
aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us-win or die in the
attempt.  Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists.  The finest
organizations in history have been tough, dedicated organizations.  Not one
namby-pamby bunch of pantywaist dilettantes have ever made anything.  It’s a
tough universe.  The social veneer makes it seem mild.  But only the tigers
survive-and even they have a hard time. We’ll survive because we are tough and
are dedicated.  When we do instruct somebody properly, he becomes more and more
a tiger.  When we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to
enforce, we don’t make students into good Scientologists and that lets everybody
down.  When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt
in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she’ll win and we’ll all win.  Humor
her and we all die a little.  The proper instruction attitude is, “You’re here so
you are a Scientologist.  Now we’re going to make you into an expert auditor no
matter what.  We’d rather have you dead than incapable.”

We’re not playing some minor game in Scientology.  It isn’t cute or something to
do for lack of something better.

The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and
your own destiny for the next trillions of years depend on what you do here and
now with and in Scientology.
This is a deadly serious activity.  And if we miss getting out of the trap now,
we may never again have another chance.

Pretty tough words huh?  You, like all Scientologists will come to live, and maybe die by these words. Yes, it has happened.

If you do not fully agree with this policy letter.  You did not understand it.  There is a word or words that you do not understand.  So you need to read this policy while being word cleared.  This is a process where in you read this policy out load to someone else while they watch you for indicators of the word you don’t fully understand.  It will not take too long before you get it that you will understand and agree with this or you will never get through your course.  Why do you want to get through the course?  First, you actually felt good after the last one, and second because you actually liked it when everyone applauded you.

All of this, and more.  The continual tearing down, building up, applauding, cheering at events, the “friends” that you will make, yelling “hip hip hooray” and clapping for Ron (long dead).  It is all designed to do only two things.  To take your mind farther into the cult and to take more and even more of your money.

Hey you!  Yes you.  Do you hear me yelling at my T.V.?  “Don’t go in there!”

Thank you so much for reading this.  If you have not yet read my previous post, Why I Left Scientology, please click here. If you like this please share it with your friends, and subscribe to this blog so you can be alerted when the next post comes out.  As always, I welcome your comments.  Thank you again.

 There are other posts on Robinson's blog, equally absorbing. I recommend it.

The 'Church' of Scientology