The most curious and useful thing to realize is that one never knows the impression one is creating on other people. One may often guess pretty accurately whether it is good, bad, or indifferent—some people render it unnecessary for one to guess, they practically inform one—but that is not what I mean. I mean much more than that. I mean that one has one’s self no mental picture corresponding to the mental picture which one’s personality leaves in the minds of one’s friends. Has it ever struck you that there is a mysterious individual going around, walking the streets, calling at houses for tea, chatting, laughing, grumbling, arguing, and that all your friends know him and have long since added him up and come to a definite conclusion about him—without saying more than a chance, cautious word to you; and that that person is you? Supposing that you came into adrawing-room where you were having tea, do you think you would recognize yourself as an individuality? I think not. You would be apt to say to yourself, as guests do when disturbed in drawing-rooms by other guests: “Who’s this chap? Seems rather queer, I hope he won’t be a bore.” And your first telling would be slightly hostile. Why, even when you meet yourself in an unsuspected mirror in the very clothes that you have put on that very day and that you know by heart, you are almost always shocked by the realization that you are you. And now and then, when you have gone to the glass to arrange your hair in the full sobriety of early morning, have you not looked on an absolute stranger, and has not that stranger piqued your curiosity? And if it is thus with precise external details of form, colour, and movement, what may it not be with the vague complex effect of the mental and moral individuality?
A man honestly tries to make a good impression. What is the result? The result merely is that his friends, in the privacy of their minds, set him down as a man who tries to make a good impression. If much depends on the result of a single interview, or a couple of interviews, a man may conceivably force another to accept an impression of himself which he would like to convey. But if the receiver of the impression is to have time at his disposal, then the giver of the impression may just as well sit down and put his hands in his pockets, for nothing that he can do will modify or influence in any way the impression that he will ultimately give. The real impress is, in the end, given unconsciously, not consciously; and further, it is received unconsciously, not consciously. It depends partly on both persons. And it is immutably fixed beforehand. There can be no final deception. Take the extreme case, that of the mother and her son. One hears that the son hoodwinks his mother. Not he! If he is cruel, neglectful, overbearing, she is perfectly aware of it. He does not deceive her, and she does not deceive herself. I have often thought: If a son could look into a mother’s heart, what an eye-opener he would have! “What!” he would cry. “This cold, impartial judgment, this keen vision for my faults, this implacable memory of little slights, and injustices, and callousnesses committed long ago, in the breast of my mother!” Yes, my friend, in the breast of your mother. The only difference between your mother and another person is that she takes you as you are, and loves you for what you are. She isn’t blind: do not imagine it.
The marvel is, not that people are such bad judges of character, but that they are such good judges, especially of what I may call fundamental character. The wiliest person cannot for ever conceal his fundamental character from the simplest. And people are very stern judges, too. Think of your best friends—are you oblivious of their defects? On the contrary, you are perhaps too conscious of them. When you summon them before your mind’s eye, it is no ideal creation that you see. When you meet them and talk to them you are constantly making reservations in their disfavour—unless, of course, you happen to be a schoolgirl gushing over like a fountain with enthusiasm. It is well, when one is judging a friend, to remember that he is judging you with the same godlike and superior impartiality. It is well to grasp the fact that you are going through life under the scrutiny of a band of acquaintances who are subject to very few illusions about you, whose views of you are, indeed, apt to be harsh and even cruel. Above all it is advisable to comprehend thoroughly that the things in your individuality which annoy your friends most are the things of which you are completely unconscious. It is not until years have passed that one begins to be able to form a dim idea of what one has looked like to one’s friends. At forty one goes back ten years, and one says sadly, but with a certain amusement: “I must have been pretty blatant then. I can see how I must have exasperated ’em. And yet I hadn’t the faintest notion of it at the time. My intentions were of the best. Only I didn’t know enough.” And one recollects some particularly crude action, and kicks one’s self…. Yes, that is all very well; and the enlightenment which has come with increasing age is exceedingly satisfactory. But you are forty now. What shall you be saying of yourself at fifty? Such reflections foster humility, and they foster also a reluctance, which it is impossible to praise too highly, to tread on other people’s toes.
A moment ago I used the phrase “fundamental character.” It is a reminiscence of Stevenson’s phrase “fundamental decency.” And it is the final test by which one judges one’s friends. “After all, he’s a decent fellow.” We must be able to use that formula concerning our friends. Kindliness of heart is not the greatest of human qualities—and its general effect on the progress of the world is not entirely beneficent—but it is the greatest of human qualities in friendship. It is the least dispensable quality. We come back to it with relief from more brilliant qualities. And it has the great advantage of always going with a broad mind. Narrow-minded people are never kind-hearted. You may be inclined to dispute this statement: please think it over; I am inclined to uphold it.
We can forgive the absence of any quality except kindliness of heart. And when a man lacks that, we blame him, we will not forgive him. This is, of course, scandalous. A man is born as he is born. And he can as easily add a cubit to his stature as add kindliness to his heart. The feat never has been done, and never will be done. And yet we blame those who have not kindliness. We have the incredible, insufferable, and odious audacity to blame them. We think of them as though they had nothing to do but go into a shop and buy kindliness. I hear you say that kindliness of heart can be “cultivated.” Well, I hate to have even the appearance of contradicting you, but it can only be cultivated in the botanical sense. You can’t cultivate violets on a nettle. A philosopher has enjoined us to suffer fools gladly. He had more usefully enjoined us to suffer ill-natured persons gladly…. I see that in a fit of absentmindedness I have strayed into the pulpit. I descend.
50 Hours – 10 290. 28 Euro
More proof about fairgaming Pierre Ethier by the Church of Scientology allies, stooges and agents. The term Fair Game is used to describe extremist practices carried out by the Church of Scientology allies and agents towards people who disagree with the Church abuses. According to the Church practices, opponents who are declared “fair game” may be “deprived of property or injured by any means…. may be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” This extremist practice also “extends to suppressive non-Scientology wives and husbands and parents, or other family members or hostile groups or even close friends.” The extremist and abusive administration practices ( not the technology) are in the core of our disagreements. Carrying out fairgame programs looks real BAD ! One does not selectively apply ETHICS just when they see it fit to their own agenda!
Copy of a secret OSA fairgame program directing to start rumors:
“A/INVEST AIDE OSA CIS
- Implement this handling through suitable identities who can post on the news groups. Apply HCO Exec Letter 27 Sep 1965, Amprinistics, “Internal dissention is what tears these splinter groups apart. Formed by people whose overt acts against Scientology prevent case gain, they rapidly rip one another to pieces.”
A/INVEST AIDE OSA CIS
- Have this started as a minor rumor that can be legitimately picked up by someone else on the chat group and turned into a hot topic of discussion. Add other points of known natter and buttons.”
Here the proof of executing the program on the internet using OSA stooges to post fraudulent accusations and smear Pierre claiming ” Pierre Ethier is really a piece of work and only cares about himself and making money (does he remind you of anyone?).”
Pierre has worked 20 years in the Sea Org as an auditor at no pay. This is definitely NOT because he thought about “making money”. Pierre also gave ALL the money he had to parishioners in order for them to go up the bridge. The money were NEVER repaid and Pierre was unable to pay for a surgery he needed and remained disabled for life.
Copy of a secret OSA fairgame program:
Here is a witness statement showing details about the execution of OSA Program ( below ) fairgaming Pierre Ethier with fabrications and fraudulent claims:
27th May 2007, 08:52 PM #1
Default Freezone training camp in Switzerland
I just returned from one of Ron’s Orgs bi-annual training camps for Western Europe in French-Switzerland. The camp ran for just over two weeks (covered three weekends).
I traveled from the UK for the duration and finished my course and managed to route onto the next one. The camp was in a big old school house in the Swiss mountains on the French borders. People came from Germany, France, Switzerland, Netherlands and the UK. The building is located in a very green location with great scenery and very friendly village nearby.
The first weekend was relatively busy with the numbers of people building up during the following week, climaxing on the second weekend. The third week was quieter as people started leaving. I estimate there could have been about 80 people there? Maybe more. There was lots of auditing completions, course completions.
We were visited by the Church on many occasions. The one time I bumped into Church people was at the pertol station/cafe near the camp. When I came out they spoke to me (in English) trying to foist a Freezonesurvivors.to pamphlet into my hands. I told the guy I did not need the pamphlet as I had read the site many times. I then questioned him about one of the people on the website and how they are in poor ethics standing with the Church and have literally been ‘kicked out’ for investigating staff ethics. He didn’t even recognise the name! He then went to attack Pierre Ethier with a lie that he had bad metering on him (he probably read it on the site). The guy was potentially an illegal PC, it is very unlikely that Pierre would have audited him. I mentioned that Pierre has audited people I know with incredible results.
I then went to mention London Org being pretty empty and gave him some stat examples of when I was on staff. He told me ‘London is booming!’. This goes against the data given via Teril from someone who recently got a tour and against what I witnessed when I recently went to take a look at the Ideal Org and at the Testing Centre. During the whole conversation he kept trying to give me the flier despite the fact that I knew the site better than he did!
The next day I was sitting on the steps outside the old school house on a dinner break and goodness me….. ……you could spot them coming a mile away they look so goddamn eccentric! There was three of them crossing the country road fully armed with more of the same. Due to the amount of fliers and three people this time, I was wondering whether there was a stat and a birthday game point at risk. No one spoke to them – they just stood at the gate waiving for us to come to them. A german guy asked if they spoke in English and they responded with ‘No!’ They tried to tempt all the French speakers over. The two guys I spoke to previously did not speak English when questioned by others, though they did to me.
Exerts from article by Д-р Десислава Панайотова-Пулиева about the corrupt tactics by the Corporate Church of Scientology:
Сектата „Сциентология” е създадена от американския писател-фантаст Лафайет Рон Хъбард в средата на 20 век.
В тази секта привидно се проповядва между-човешка и религиозна толерантност, и че произлиза от будизма, но всъщност прилича доста на тоталитарен култ, в чийто център стои личността на нейния основател. Рон Хъбард е известен с отрицателното си отношение към редица от световните религии, в това число на християнството. През 1950 г. той издава „Дианетика: съвременна наука за душевно здраве“, с което поставя началото на своята „религия“. През 1954 г. в САЩ е регистрирана и първата сциентоложка църква.
В рамките на сектата съществуват „Служба за специални въпроси“ и Отряд „Проект Рехабилитация“. Първата структура изпълнява всякакви секретни поръчения, давани от висшето ръководство на сциентолозите, в това число: следене, домогване до лични данни, оказване на психологически и финансов натиск, предизвикване на семейни проблеми и др. Според данните, втората структура представлява средство за принуда и манипулиране на членове на организацията, които са проявили съмнение в учението.
Не един път сциентолози са били осъждани за изнудване на хора. През 1996 г. е установена връзка между такова изнудване и причините за самоубийство. Чак тогава властите в САЩ определят сциентологията като секта. Добрата новина е, че в България официално няма данни за съществуването на последователи на сектата. Те се опитват да плъзнат и в България, регистрирани са вече опити, но благодарение на бързата намеса на Българската православна църква (БПЦ) и органите на реда са отхвърляни. Но докога ли ще успява БПЦ да ги държи настрани?
ВАЖНО! ДА ПОВТОРИМ:
3. Както вече споменахме по-горе: силно притеснителен е фактът, че в рамките на сциентологичната организация/секта съществуват т. нар. Служба за специални въпроси (Office of Special Affairs (OSA) и Отряд „Проект Рехабилитация” (Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF).
Първата структура (OSA) изпълнява всякакви секретни поръчения, давани от висшето ръководство (Sea Organization – Морската организация) на сциентолозите, в това число: следене на външни хора и на членове на организацията; домогване до лични данни, до лична и класифицирана информация; оказване на психологически, административен и финансов натиск; предизвикване на семейни проблеми, на изкуствени фалити, и др.
Втората структура (RPF) представлява средство за принуда и манипулиране на членове на организацията, които са проявили съмнение, несъгласие и съпротива спрямо идеите, методите и практиките на сциентологичната организация с цел те да бъдат отново убедени в смисъла на това да работят за интересите на организацията. Данните на потърпевши, както и на съдебни институции и независими изследователи, показват, че в лагерите на RPF хората се третират по недостоен и насилствен начин: карани са да извършват тежки и унизителни трудови задачи; нямат право да говорят, докато не бъдат заговорени от натоварен с наблюдението им служител; отказва им се достъп до средствата за масова информация; не им се осигурява добра храна; принуждавани са към участие в многочасови „прослушвания” от специални одитори (разпитвачи) и към дълги обучения с цел „преоткриване” изключителността на сциентологията, и мн. др. Всичко това се извършва с цел повишаване равнището на влияние на сциентологията във всяка държава – на индивидуално, семейно, институционално и национално ниво, а оттам – и в международен план. За голямо съжаление в такива лагери наред с посочените престъпления са възниквали и конкретни смъртни случаи, част от които са били повод за дългогодишни съдебни битки на семействата на загиналите срещу сциентологичната организация. (Повече информация във връзка със съдебните процеси срещу сциентолозите може да се намери в документи като: „Conditions, Awards and Penances.“ Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 16 November 1971R, Revised. (16 November): 3pp. Royal Courts of Justice. 1984. Decision in ‘B & G Wards,’ High Court, London. Judge J. Latey. (July 23): 53pp.; Dr Stephen Kent, Revised Version of a Presentation at the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, San Diego, California (November 7, 1977) – BRAINWASHING IN SCIENTOLOGY’S REHABILITATION PROJECT FORCE (RPF); Armstrong, Gerry. 1982. „Affidavit of Gerry Armstrong.“ Filed in Orange County, California for the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. „Tonya Burden, Plaintiff v. Church of Scientology of California, Defendants. (June 25): 8pp.; и мн. др.).
Д-р Десислава Панайотова-Пулиева
In this sect apparently preached inter-human and religious tolerance, and that comes from Buddhism, but it looks like quite a totalitarian cult, in whose center stands the personality of its founder. Ron Hubbard is known for its negative attitude to a number of world religions, including Christianity. In 1950 he published “Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health”, which marked the beginning of his “religion”. In 1954, the US registered and the first Church of Scientology.
Within the sect exist “Office of Special Affairs” detachment “Rehabilitation Project”. The first structure to carry out any secret errands given by senior Scientologists, including: monitoring, soliciting personal information, provide psychological and financial pressure, causing family problems and others. According to the second structure is a means of coercion and manipulation of the members of the organization who have expressed doubt in their practices.
Corporate Scientologists associated with the Church were convicted of extortion of people. In 1996, a connection is established between such blackmail and reasons for suicide. Only then did the US authorities define Scientology as a cult. The good news is that in Bulgaria there is no official data on the existence of followers of the sect. They try to drag in Bulgaria are registered already attempts, but thanks to the rapid intervention of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (BOC) and the police are rejected. But how long will you managed BOC to keep them away?