Will Smith's New School For Scientology?

Scientology script for dealing with criticism:

You're speaking of something you have no real experience or knowledge of.

You're a religious bigot.

What are your crimes?

Cut to the chase, Gabi.

Anonomomily wrote:

<quoted text>
Did some searching for that bill in your area. We have had the same issue in Florida. Co$ doesn't seem to care about the evolution issue, but they like the issues that deal with public money for private tutoring sessions. Go figure.
I love this quote:
Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State took a firm stance in a press release (June 27, 2008): "Let me state clearly and upfront that any attempts to use this law to sneak religion into public schools through the back door will not be tolerated.… I call on all concerned residents of Louisiana to help us make sure that public schools educate, not indoctrinate."
June 27, 2008

Thank goodness we have some like Lynn around. This whole issue has been literally driving me crazy, as listening to these proponents speak just leaves me in awe of the ignorance that abounds in regards to evolution. Heh, try writing a non-biased article on this crap. It sure ain't easy. LOL

Indeed, I haven't been able to find any link between the COS and this bill. It did peak my curiosity once I realized that they have gotten their methods introduced to at least one school in our capital city. NOLA is like a guinea pig experiment these days regarding educational programs. It wouldn't surprise me if COS has been involved down there after reading of this. To be fair, it doesn't surprise me that many religious and political groups are reaping rewards from the devastation either.

These private tutoring sessions got me thinking....in my daughter's school district, if a child is having problems in a class, then s/he must take afterschool tutoring sessions. I'm now wondering if AS is a part of this....Now if it's totally secular in nature, I don't have a problem with it.

From what the BR mayor's official said, there was no mention of religion. However, any techniques that are injected into curriculum must be questioned within the public school system. That this tech was never questioned, yet implemented, is reprehensible. But to be fair to the officials here, they were in a tough spot and something had to be done and fast. Right place, right time. Probably not a coincidence by any means...

I do find it difficult to believe what she said about 100% of the students in this program doing better. But that could be my skeptical nature. I haven't found anything to substantiate nor to refute that claim yet.

Oops! Sorry. Only say up to page 21 for some reason.

Yep, missed the scroll slider. Sorry- hadn't seen a thread this long before.

Some1 Else wrote:

<quoted text>
Geesh. I gave the link and said it had follow ups. Had I posted all the letters, then you would've probably accused me of spamming. Damned if I do or damned if I don't. Feel like I'm in a religious convention here....

You slecetively used the excuse of "editing for space and brevity" to try quantify the cults argument that Smith's scho9ol wasnt scientology
[QUOTE who="Some1
Out of curiosity, since you seemed to think it necessary to post the immediate follow up,[/QUOTE] You seemed to have felt it necessary to selectively use the OCMB thread to solidify your point.

Some1 Else wrote:

why were you then dishonest enough to leave out the first letter and the latter responses?

Are you for real or what? YOU selectively posted the letter that best fit your untenable position, and youre now trying to twist it into me being dishonest? I LOL!

Some1 Else wrote:

<quoted text>
So? Do you think I didn't consider that some of you may be?

I honestly dont believe you make many considerations, other than what it takes for you to obfuscate the facts with "editied for space and brevity"

Some1 Else wrote:

I just found it by googling lousiana+family+forum+applied+ scholastics. The reason I was looking at LFF with the AS is because of the creationist bill that has passed here and this group seems to be one of the main ones pushing it. So I wondered if scientology is part of that group, maybe advocated that bill in some way.

The thread is about Smith's scientology school, not some other religion, so your justification is moot.

Some1 Else wrote:

At least I was honest enough to take back what I said earlier out of ignorance to the fact of scientology's involvement here.

Got a link to that?

Some1 Else wrote:

But don't let that stop you from bashing me, esp since you don't know me.

"Bashing" you? If you consider the facts being ptresented to all and sundry as you being "bashed", then you would do well to arm yourself with the facts, before you open your pie hole trying to defend/excuse something you know nothing about.

So, re-read the thread title and accompanying report, instead of wanting to tangent onto something that has ZERO to do with scientology.There are specific types that want to *not* discuss the cult of scientology.
Are you one of those types?

Gold Mask wrote:

<quoted text>You slecetively used the excuse of "editing for space and brevity" to try quantify the cults argument that Smith's scho9ol wasnt scientology
<quoted text> You seemed to have felt it necessary to selectively use the OCMB thread to solidify your point.
<quoted text>
Are you for real or what? YOU selectively posted the letter that best fit your untenable position, and youre now trying to twist it into me being dishonest? I LOL!
<quoted text>
I honestly dont believe you make many considerations, other than what it takes for you to obfuscate the facts with "editied for space and brevity"
<quoted text>The thread is about Smith's scientology school, not some other religion, so your justification is moot.
<quoted text>
Got a link to that?
<quoted text>
"Bashing" you? If you consider the facts being ptresented to all and sundry as you being "bashed", then you would do well to arm yourself with the facts, before you open your pie hole trying to defend/excuse something you know nothing about.
So, re-read the thread title and accompanying report, instead of wanting to tangent onto something that has ZERO to do with scientology.There are specific types that want to *not* discuss the cult of scientology.
Are you one of those types?

It had to do with BATON ROUGE, and I was admitting my earlier statement was wrong in regards to COS not getting its claws in down here yet. I edited the letter for the points regarding the implementation of the program in BR and the official's statements regarding the results. It really wasn't necessary after knowing this was done in the wake of Katrina and Rita to include the parts which elaborated on the desperate situation being dealt with at the time. That's called common courtesy so as not to spam the thread. But I see you have a problem with that.

"You seemed to have felt it necessary to selectively use the OCMB thread to solidify your point."

What point is that? The only point was I was wrong. If you have a problem with that letter, you have the woman's address. I didn't select that thread; it was the first on the findings list.

I made no claims in regards to whether that program works or not; why are you trying to twist it around to make it look as if I had?

Once again, I also posted the link and said there were follow ups there. Guess you wanted me to post all those letters for your convenience? Is that what you want? Or do you just like to hear yourself whine?

Anonymousse wrote:

Having nothing to do with Scientology, but everything to do with your interest in science education, some1...
have you seen M.J. McDermott's video on "An Inconvenient Truth about Math Education"? It's controversial. Here are some links for and against:
M.J. McDermott (meteorologist in Seattle): http://www.youtube.com/watch...
James Blackburn-Lynch (I had some difficulty hearing him; you may want to adjust the sound): http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Cliff Mass, Ph.D., U. Washington Atmospheric Sciences: http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Dr. Tsewei Wang, Associate Professor of Chemistry, UT-Knoxville: http://www.lit.net/orschools/everydaymath2.ht...

Thank you very much for giving opposing views. That is much appreciated and respected.

The college professor makes some excellent points. Maybe it's a lag, i.e. parents are stuck with the way they learned things and some aren't able to comprehend the newer algorithm concepts in order to help their children.

However, McDermott's point of the confusion so many different ways of being taught causes is one I see as very valid as well. Sometimes the older methods which have been true to us are the best ones to use until a skill is mastered. Then it seems it would be a good idea to introduce newer algorithms, so that the students don't have the confusion of learning so many different ways at one time. The tried and true method is the easiest for sure, IMO, for promoting mastery. But we must then broaden our understanding to encompass other ways of thinking a problem through.

BTW, I resemble that cluster remark.:)

Great videos and info. Again, thanks.

Anonomomily wrote:

<quoted text>
SP's are "Supressive Persons". Those would be all non-believers in scientology. All non-believers are subject to those structures. Boy, you really haven't done a bit of homework at all on the actual beliefs of scientologists.
Even if all you did was listen to Tom Cruise's video, you would have picked up on that one.
Oh, and deceit and dishonesty are accepted in
all those arenas, so you just try and avoid big business, religion, etc? I'm tired of you dancing around the key subjects and focusing on tangents.
So here are my questions to you.
Did Will Smith's school originally present "Applied Scholastics" as an integral part of the curriculum and subsequently rewrite the website to obscure and minimize it's role?
Did they originally publish a list of the teachers, and when many were revealed to be active scientologists, they were removed?
Does the school present many aspects of scientologist doctrine and language even now in the website, like "ethics teacher", and yet still deny that they are providing scientology education to children.
Is that ethical? Is it honest? Is it moral? Do you care, since there is so much dishonestly out there? Guess not.
For your convenience( thank you Gold Mask):
Research done that proves Will Smith's school is based on scientology.
"Will's Scientology Academy has "cleansed" its website"
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php ...
Oh dear, the list of staff/scientologists names that the cult/New Villiage Academy have tried to bury.
Uh oh. there's all those scientology completions there as well.
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php ...
What is 'study tech'?
http://www.studytech.org/home.php

You are the one who is supposed to know about scientology. I'm not really interested in their beliefs so much as I'm interested in the organization and the influence on aspects of our society claimed by former followers and others.

Look back at your words in the post to which I responded. Maybe you will see that it's not exactly clear what you mean by that whole paragraph, and why I took SP to mean converts.

I'm not capable of giving my perspective on the beliefs, just as you may not be capable of giving your perspective from inside the Christian myth. I'm going on the info of those here, who believed this myth at one time, and who I'd expect to be able to clarify those beliefs in a more adept way than exhibited by that particular post.

Why are the beliefs relevent now? I thought you guys weren't against the beliefs anyway, but the organization's actions that purportedly are deceptive, and no doubt are.

Anonomomily, my apologies. I may have gotten you mixed up with Red Pill. Maybe you are against the beliefs themselves?

Some1 Else wrote:

I'm interested in the organization and the influence on aspects of our society claimed by former followers and others.

Its not a "claim", it *is* a FACT. You can read about it in hubbard's own policy
Begin fair use extract
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY, 1969
Guardians Offices
Intelligence
PRO
Issue IV
Confidential
TARGETS, DEFENSE
It is quite obvious that Scientology has to maintain a defense perimeter. In 19 years of continual attacks it is obvious that Dianetics then Scientology must have lain across some concerted plan by another older group to do something else.
To analyze what the others intended, it is only necessary to review what Dianetics and Scientology intended to do and assume the reverse.
Experience has shown that defense is only effective when one sorties or attacks.
When we did not give a lot of time and energy and funds to knocking out real enemies we came close to losing the lot.
The errors we have made have been
1. Defending only.
2. Defending on Scn ground.
3. Being reasonable and assigning mild motives to the enemy.
4. Failing to attack early and hard.
5. Undervaluing the broad social value of Scn.
6. Individuating from other similar organizations.
7. Not learning enemy tactics and using and bettering them.
8. Failing to heavily contest for public opinion and public media.
9. Failing to identify the enemy early and hit him hard.
A. Our best defense is that we are sincere,that we are effective and that we commit no crimes.
B. Our next best defense line was being sure the public knew we were a Church.
C. Our next best was being quick and able and using very fast comm lines.
We must not repeat the errors of 1 to 9.
And we must reinforce A, B and C.
TARGETS
The vital targets on which we must invest most of our time are:
T1. Depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration.
T2. Taking over the control or allegiance of the heads or proprietors of all news media.
T3. Taking over the control or allegiance of key political figures.
T4. Taking over the control or allegiance of those who monitor international finance and shifting them to a less precarious finance standard.
T5. Generally revitalizing the societies in which we are operating.
T6. Winning overwhelming public support.
T7. Use all other similar groups as allies.
These, of course, are very long range targets. But it is what must be done to continue the longevity of our organizations.
Our only justification for doing these things is that Scientology is the only game where everyone wins.
The names and connections, at this time, of the bitterly opposing
enemy are:
1.Psychiatry and psychology (not medicine).
2.The heads of news media who are also directors of psychiatric front groups.
3.A few key political figures in the fields of "mental health" and education.
4. A decline of monetary stability caused by the current planning of bankers who are also directors of psychiatric front organizations would make us unable to function.
5. The cold war is being fought on home ground and has an apparent target of degrading western society to a point where we are finding it difficult to operate; a degraded society can be swallowed up easily by an enemy.
6. The public is somewhat sympathetic already but in a democracy trials are by public opinion. To win all the way,the bulk of public opinion must be at the level of love us...hate the enemy.
7. Many groups exist with similar aims. They need organizing and uniting.
At first glance the targets T1 to T7 are a pretty big handful. But we have to start somewhere. And we might as well start in the direction of the total target as per T1 - T7.
Nearly everything we are doing is already tending in that direction T1 - T7.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/CoS/targets-defe...
Do you see "3.A few key political figures in the fields of "mental health" and education."?
Lurk moar

I am against the specific tenet of scientology in which they teach that anyone who is not actively supporting and spreading and utilizing their "tech" is a lesser being, not deserving of basic human or civil rights, worthy of being only "disposed of quietly and without sorrow".

This is why I cannot ignore the "beliefs" of a committed scientologist. The words of Lron Hubbard are "source" and thus must be followed. Individual scientologists may say the currently politically correct thing, but it is there in black and white.

As far as the rest of it, the "space opera" (lrons words once again), Xenu, etc. I think he was a whacked out,psychotic drunk/druggie (also based on his own words). That being said, lots of people who don't pop pills and down quantities of rum believe in past lives and paranormal stuff. Whatever floats your boat.

But if an organization seeks to reduce a substantial portion of the human race to an inferior position so they can get rid of them?

There is a very good reason why the German's don't want them around.

Gold Mask wrote:

<quoted text>
Got a link to that?
<quoted text>
"Bashing" you? If you consider the facts being ptresented to all and sundry as you being "bashed", then you would do well to arm yourself with the facts, before you open your pie hole trying to defend/excuse something you know nothing about.
So, re-read the thread title and accompanying report, instead of wanting to tangent onto something that has ZERO to do with scientology.There are specific types that want to *not* discuss the cult of scientology.
Are you one of those types?

Post #394
"Well obviously scientology hasn't gotten its claws in down here in the buckle of the Bible Belt yet. Thank goodness because we have enough of our own religious nuts."
http://www.topix.net/forum/religion/scientolo...

Show me where I've defended anything other than an individual's right to hold the beliefs promoted by the COS. Show where I've excused anything they've done that may be criminal and deceptive.

So now you are saying that this issue of AS isn't to do with scientology? Please clarify. I've been under the impression that AS has everything to do with COS.

i dont particularly agree with scientology, but i think people need to be a little more objective, if it was a catholic teacher i am sure they would try thier best to not air their personal views but people are human and certain viewpoints leak through as i am sure a scientologist teacher will do the same.
Bottom line, were all human, and i am sure just as there are bad eggs and good eggs in scientology there are also bad eggs and good eggs in other religions. people just seem to remember the bad a little better.

Yeah riiight, Smelly. You dont agree with scientology, but...
Nothing 'objective' about scientology, not one iota in fact.

Why do you apololgists always argue/respond the very same way scientologists do?
It's surely not because youre another sly scientologist trying to manipulate peoples perceptions by saying "Im not a scientologist/ dont particularly agree with scientology, but".
Are are you someones sockpuppet?
Doesnt matter anyway. The world now knows Smith is a lying sack of pooh that cannot hide his scientology affiliation any longer.

In regards to the "scripture" of scientology, this blogger must have been on my wavelength...How fortuitous!
http://blackfish.biz/allen/

"Scientology’s core belief is that anything said by L. Ron Hubbard is true and correct. Furthermore they have to read and sign a document called “keeping Scientology Working” which says in part,

(Hubbard describing non-Scientology-like thinking.)

This point will, of course, be attacked as “unpopular”,“egotistical” and
“undemocratic”. It very well may be. But it is also a survival point. And I
don’t see that popular measures, self-abnegation and democracy have done
anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity
endorses degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the South East Asian
jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and
income tax.

So in other words, it’s OK to attack anyone who refuses to join Scientology or is skeptical of it. That’s because freedom, democracy and all of that crap has produced nothing of value anyway. Only good old fashion tyranny works in human society."

This is the blog of G. Allen, resident of Clearwater Fl, mecca of scientology. I enjoy his analysis.

Just to make the connection, "Applied Scholastics" as licensed by the Co$, and set to be included in the NVA curriculum is a direct indoctrination into the Co$. This is what the children will ultimately be taught.

"Yeah riiight, Smelly." ?

Ah are we in 4th grade Jose?
LOL @ you implying im a mole scientologist, you couldn't be further from the truth or from your understanding of how I feel about scientology.

Merely making an observation about the opposite side of the argument for the sake of conversation.

This post is about Will Smiths School and my point was perhaps he doesnt have some agenda and you are being a lil "conspiracy theory" hungry

BUT i do believe scientology is a cult... IF yo MUST know.....THERE now maybe Jose will accept my post now yeh?

hahaha

cheers, Melly...(not smelly, thanks)

Anonomomily wrote:

I am against the specific tenet of scientology in which they teach that anyone who is not actively supporting and spreading and utilizing their "tech" is a lesser being, not deserving of basic human or civil rights, worthy of being only "disposed of quietly and without sorrow".
This is why I cannot ignore the "beliefs" of a committed scientologist. The words of Lron Hubbard are "source" and thus must be followed. Individual scientologists may say the currently politically correct thing, but it is there in black and white.
As far as the rest of it, the "space opera" (lrons words once again), Xenu, etc. I think he was a whacked out,psychotic drunk/druggie (also based on his own words). That being said, lots of people who don't pop pills and down quantities of rum believe in past lives and paranormal stuff. Whatever floats your boat.
But if an organization seeks to reduce a substantial portion of the human race to an inferior position so they can get rid of them?
There is a very good reason why the German's don't want them around.

Excellent point Milly. I'm sure you've seen the youtube videos where $cientologists deny three little girls entrance to a Subway to eat because they and their mom were protesting (it seems $cientologists at a Starbucks did that as well) along with the video where a young male $cientologist refuses to let an elderly woman on a walker pass thru their blockade of a city street to get home. He only relents when she starts screaming. Three older male $cientologists stand by and do nothing. "Dispose of quietly and without sorrow" indeed. Imagine if these people had ever successfully infilltrated schools, government, etc as they had hoped. As Hubbard said "Someday someone will say this is illegal. By then let's make sure the orgs say what is legal or not".

I refuse to even refer to them as a "religion" anymore. They're a destructive cult so let's call it what it is. If there was ever any doubt, and for me there wasn't, Lawrence Brennan's declaration cleared that up.

melly wrote:

i dont particularly agree with scientology, but i think people need to be a little more objective, if it was a catholic teacher i am sure they would try thier best to not air their personal views but people are human and certain viewpoints leak through as i am sure a scientologist teacher will do the same.
Bottom line, were all human, and i am sure just as there are bad eggs and good eggs in scientology there are also bad eggs and good eggs in other religions. people just seem to remember the bad a little better.

$cientology isn't a few "bad eggs", they're corrupt from the top down. It's not leaking thru, it's $cientology indoctrination, and they can't even be honest about that.

It's hard not to "remember" $cientology's 60 years of crimes, cons, scams, and fair-gaming.

google is your friend.

SO MANY big words

good to know