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.
Misenla (email@example.com) wrote:
: Jeta quoted a list of suppressive acts (<firstname.lastname@example.org>),
: 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
: 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
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
Robert Vaughn Young