Scientology Ban by Australian Government - Guest- Roger Boswarva
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 жов 2024
- Mark Fisher and Janis Gillham Grady are joined by Roger Boswarva to discuss when Scientology was banned by the government in Victoria, Australia in the 1960s and what happened as a result.
Roger (88 years old) then discusses his continued search for spiritual enlightenment and how he feels about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.
Roger Boswarva was a champion Lifeguard swimmer in Australia in the mid 1950s and a celebrity at that time. He got involved with Dianetics and Scientology in order to improve his performance. He went on to become a successful Introductory Lecturer and trained many people to be Field Staff Members for Scientology in Australia and later England. He finally left Scientology in the early 1980s and continued his search for spritual enlightment away from Scientology.
Remember to Subscribe to our Page -
@MarkFisherandJanisGillhamGrady
Please subscribe to Mark's new Page - Las Vegas, Travel and More -
@mfisherlv
To purchase Merch for this channel including KOALA CALM, Joint Formula, Autographed books, shirts, coffee mugs etc, click the Store button on our page, or go to our website - our-scientolog...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @markfisherandjanisgil...
Buy us a Cup of Coffee - Donations are greatly appreciated -
www.buymeacoff...
Thanks so much for having Roger back on, Mark & Janis. Such important oral history here.
Thanks very much for watching. We love interviewing people and letting them tell their stories.
Enjoyed this episode Thank folks.
Hi Janis, Mark, and Misty!! Good to see you, thanks for another interesting topic and stream. Take care!! 👋🌞
Our pleasure!
Roger experiences and personal discoveries are fascinating. Great chat folks. Thank you very much!
Glad you enjoyed it
Fascinating video. Blake Huffam looked so different as a young man.
I was in his dorm room in the Old Gilman House when he escaped (actually a tiny pantry with four bunks). He pulled the same trick as your earlier guest and came back with the police to get his stuff.
When I got to the Int Base in '83 he was one of the five Sea Org members in charge of Estates for the whole 482-acre property. One guy for all the grounds, the Golf Course and so on. Later on he got a few others, Chris Byrnes, and our old friend Waldo (Bob Waldeman). And of course "Leroy" who was also in TR4 (now I can't remember his real name). The one who says "I've never been able to understand a single thing you've said!" to poor struggling auditor Dan Koon.
So much history and knowledge, just gradually fading away in the deteriorating gray matter of those who were actually there. I watch all the videos and see something I never knew every time.
Thanks for presenting them.
Hi Bruce. Nice to hear from you. Thanks so much for watching our videos. It definitely helps to hear other peoples stories in order to sort out what was going on. I learn something new almost every video. I am glad you are doing well. I don't know if you remember this, but you were there when I finally blew for good from the apartments next to the Hemet airport. LOL I just didn't tell you I was leaving. Take care and thanks for watching. Sincerely, Mark
Hi Bruce - I would love to interview you! You have some good stories.
It's been so long since I have seen that film that my memory is a little bit rusty. Chuck Holloway had a part in that film, at this moment I only remember one line of his, from Alice in Wonderland: "Once, I was a real turtle." Was Chuck's character, Leroy?
@@OneCharmedLife No, "Leroy" was actually Byron Turner, worked as a plumber in the Estates area at Gold. He was the somewhat heavy-set guy who was one of Dan Koon's preclears.
I remember the line you recall, which was very funny, not who did it. The name sounds really familiar but I am not sure where I heard it.
Very sad that this film is locked up in Gold's dusty archives forever, it would be a real hoot to see it. They had to edit Laurel Sullivan out of it (she appears next to Hubbard near the end when he comes to survey the course room). Like that old photo of Stalin with a group of followers near the river - at first it was supposed to show the creators of the Soviet Constitution. Gradually over the years the others were photoshopped out the old school way until it just showed Stalin.
With the main character, Dan Koon, on the enemy side the film is beyond rescue from Dave's point of view. Plus it is really badly made. It would be an instant cult classic if an annotated version showed up on UA-cam.
@@BrucePloetz It was still being shown when I left in 2004. By even that time there were lots of people who were declared. Also there was a film about reads starting David's Mayo that kept being played for quite sometime after David's declare. Explanation we were given is that all of the films were considered tech, written by Ron, and it didn't matter who was in them. I was happy with that explanation. In regards to the lack of professionalism in the production, we all saw it but no one would criticize them openly. They were like the emperor's new clothes. Truthfully I enjoyed them. For something on a shoestring budget, they were surprisingly good. Also after we had seen them countless times, lots of people had memorized choice parts of them, and they'd come in handy for a good laugh occasionally when voiced at the right time in conversation. You could almost count on someone giving you a tut tut and quietly exclaiming "j and d!" condescendingly though.
Once a Scientologist it’s hard to break some of that thinking and it stays with you, always
Australia had it right, we need the fbi to go after miss cabbage now that they've done diddy and the mayor of oakland What are the fibbies afraid of? That greta person? 😂😂
1:01:23 You are describing a personality trait in LRH that is also present in LRH 2.0. He got close to those in the Free Zone and then turned against them. LRH 2.0 is reported to be in Clark County Jail, Tennessee.
I've talked with many people over the years who knew Ron well. Most of them have told me that they considered Ron to be a "jolly good fellow" but that he could definitely be riled up and then act cruelly.
I've heard the occasional stories about LRH ("the original") changing character over the years. Him kidnapping Alexis and running off to Cuba hardly seems in character for a good guy. Janis also tells of witnessing Ron writing a letter in response to Alexis disowning her! Now that's MEAN. Then Ken Urqhart's story of the change in demeanor on returning from Rhodesia. Then there's the "child in the chain locker" story and others. I have heard another story of someone saying that a motorcycle accident triggered some sort of shift in character, sufficient enough for some to complain that the Ron who emerged from that incident was actually another person! (At the moment I can't remember where I heard that from)
So it appears that there might be incremental software updates to "Ron 1.0" Like versions of operating systems, perhaps there was a "Ron 1.1" and "Ron 1.2" etc. (I'm told there are some buildings where the elevators won't name the thirteenth floor; they'll skip the number and call it "14". If people are going to be so considerate to the sensitivities of superstitions of people in the naming of building stories, I think we should be as kind to fans of Ron's by skipping the "1.1" designation. Come to think of it, none of the tone scale increments between 1 and 2 are very kind, are they?)
39:00 I think many fully agree. Ron introducing this body thetan stuff is evaluating for the p.c. and also validates being a victim.
1:44 Screen shot that one. 😍
31:13 I wonder if Rosemary Delderfield is still with us! What a wonderful person. And that looks like Shiela Aldrich front row far left
😉47:32 Objection! 😉 😉 😉 Although overall the emphasis may be on "what's wrong" in marketing or talks with registrars (finding "ruins") there is also a huge emphasis on what's right: "Accent on Ability" in Dianetics '55 (actually the entire book). The entire book of Creation of Human Ability, (Such a great title to a thoroughly amazing book where, pretty much the entire book is devoted to improvement.) "The Recognition of the Rightness of the Being" from the Basic Auditing Series. There is SO much of Scientology emphasizing improvement and "the better playing of the game". I'd wager that most Scientology processing is positive gain and that really on Dianetics and correction lists and a few rundowns seem to be focused on negative gain. (This is all said on impulse without a lot of thinking about it.)😉
Good post and valid comments "OneCharmedLife" . . . Hubbard's writings of the 1950's did address the positive. Indeed, the two citations you list do address the positive and did switch me on when I read them. Hubbard's 8-8008 also was positive, though you might be surprised to learn that he shat (past tense of shit) upon Dianetics via a special footnote in 8-8008. Here I hope the specific pages I scanned today for you of that effort by Hubbard can be uploaded/copied to here.
But his address to the positive ended in 1962 when he introduced his implant stuff, and ever since that he got more and more into the pursuit of locating and cleaning up the negative . . . I don't know what levels and/or services you have done, but basically, everything released after the Grades 1-4, are a pursuit to locate and clean off the negative . . . even the L's.
L12 is a new and novel way to handle "BT's"; and L10 and L11 hunt for the negatives of the client's "dones" and failures to "do's."
Alan Walter told me that "the L's" were a disaster to him and caused him to put on enormous weight . . . the L's are delivered by a processor specially trained to IMPINGE on the client with the question which is actually a negative listing question impinge with Tone 40.
So, the observed historical fact is that Hubbard's 1950's materials were actually quite wonderful and helpful . . . then he went more and more negative . . . of course, it is to be noted that it was 1961 that subjected Hubbard to intense public criticism and invalidation . . .
Screw these stupid and impossible apps . . . I've just spent 2 hours trying to get these dopey applications to talk top each other . . . I expected UA-cam TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A PDF OF THE SCAN i DID OF HUBBARD STATING IN HIS ORIGINAL PUB OF 8-8008 "dianetics is now bad/wrong and evil as it is now run by the "psychs" . . . I can't even get the scanned doc as a JPEG up loaded to UA-cam for you. If any of you clever folks know how and can . . . I'll email the 2 to scans to you to get them up
@@rogerboswarva4102 thanks so very much!
@@rogerboswarva4102 Thanks for going to all the trouble you have gone through to supply me with your research. This is Dan Locke, you and I have not known each other very long; it was only in mid May that we first talked over zoom. I just now messaged you through zoom and that app allows one to send documents. Go there at your convenience and we can re-engage there.
Yes and no.
While there is lots of philosophy, specifically in the early work in the 50s about Ability and the basic goodness of a being, the way Scientology is run today, the Bridge, is a route from bottom up. The prospect is seen as full of shit he needs to "get rid off".
What most Scientologists believe is that they are actually good and able but they need to get rid of their bank first. And until they do they are not really that good, are aberrated and HAVE TO HAVE the bridge.
@@maxchristianesteffan2321 😍 Good honest and exact response!
13:53 Roger, maybe this makes sense: altering the isness (introducing a lie) would cause persistence and it would not necessarily be an ARC break. (not to get all philosophical on you, but...) Now that I listen again, you are making sense with your "putting it back..."
Nice thoughtful reply, "OneCharmedLife" . . . yes, altering an isness (introducing a lie) while not necessarily being a full blown ARC break-upset, would in actuality be a "break" of-in the extant Reality that existed prior to it being countered or altered.
Yes, what I did to bring "it" all back was to rekindle the agreement to have it persist and continue.
In discussing it all with my mate Max Anderson the next night, he asked me how I got it all back, I simply replied as above . . . Max simply replied, "Clever!" while wearing his famous crooked smile.
@@rogerboswarva4102 Thank goodness for alter-isness! How about this: a rapid vacillation of alter-isness and admiration(!)
48:28 "...a Hubbard (unintelligible) is a victim" I'd like to figure out what the word is I missed.
Tell where it is in the Vid . . . i.e. the minute mark and I'll hear it and let you all know . . .
@@rogerboswarva4102 48:28
God is the only one that saved you.