Misenla (misenla@aol.com) wrote:

: Jeta quoted a list of suppressive acts (<343fb659.19239471@news.xs4all.nl>),
: including the following:

: >* Pronouncing Scientologists guilty of the practice of
: > standard Scientology;

: Eh? Is "standard Scientology" a tech term, or is it *actually* suppressive
: merely to declare that a Scientologist participates in his own cult's
: practices?
: Can anybody clarify this?

This is one of the "charges" that can be leveled against a Scientologist and you would be amazed how often it is applied. Basically what this one comes down to is if you were to claim that something Hubbard wrote is harmful and dangerous and people are doing it - they are following or applying what Hubbard wrote or said - then that is a suppressive act. "Standard Scientology" is Hubbard's phrase to mean that you do it his way, with no interpretation, no questions, no variation, 100% his way, without a shred of your think, ideas, input, opinion, truth or any connection with reality.

So if Hubbard says the way to treat a psychotic is to lock them up, to isolate them, and feed them cal-mag and you were to say this is dangerous, that maybe someone might die, well, that is such a ridiculous idea that you would be committing a suppressive ac. You would be saying that to follow Hubbard is wrong. That is a suppressive act, to say someone might die if kept in isolation and denied proper medical treatment and fed cal-mag and protein shakes. That's all it means. It is Hubbard's way to keep everyone in line. If you don't do it his way - regardless of who dies - and if anyone dies, it is their fault and not his - then you are a suppressive for thinking there is another method, other than his.

Another word for it is "robotic."

Robert Vaughn Young
writer@eskimo.com

--
Robert Vaughn Young
writer@eskimo.com