TEK TALK: Co$ in the healing field by Tom Voltz
From: Tom Voltz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: TEK TALK: Co$ in the healing field
Date: 02 Aug 1996
"Actually, I would like to be able to leave all this Co$ stuff behind me - however the scienos won't let me. Their harrassment doesn't stop ... As long as they continue their tactics with me and my wife, that's how long I would like to become accredited by the ARSCC as a critic." - Tom Voltz in his delurk post. Thought I 'd entertain a little series here to bring certain pieces of ElRon's tek for your information, entertainment or any other appropriate reaction. Discussion in several threads currently focuses on the question of Co$ being involved in healing or not. I would like to contribute a few bits and pieces for discussion. From the book "Handbook for Preclears", first published in 1951, chapter THE NINTH ACT: "At the Foundation we repair psychotics, the despair of thousands of years of civilized man, in a relatively short period of time. For two thousand years they have been giving psychotics shocks, restraints and operations - there has been no change. Freud alone suggested a change but he didn't have the reason why nor the effectiveness and today, in major institutions, these antique methods pass for "modern" treatment. Out of our present body of knowledge we are restoring the sanity and effectiveness of psychotics, a thing which has never before been done with regularity or a guarantee of success. We even restore psychotics who have been given "mordern" treatements, shock and the rest of it." I wonder whether that paragraph is still in today's version of the book? (Mine is 1968.) This in my view certainly qualifies as a healing claim. The way the book is made up - you follow precise steps of self-therapy - I don't think it would pass as a "religious healing" book. As the book also makes repeated reference to "this science" (meaning scientology) I believe there is sufficient reason to view the healing claims from a secular viewpoint. Or can one do ANYthing in the U.S. and get away with it by calling it "religion"? (Being in Europe I lack some understanding of U.S customs.) What, if part someone's religion was to shoot all the non-believers? Would it pass as religious doctrine? What if a religion said that wogs, how they migh call such non-believers, could not be trusted with justice and that only the religion was able to produce men of sufficient ability to administer justice? How are radical islamic sects operating in the U.S. being treated? In chapter THE ELEVENTH ACT we find further medical revelation: "Nobody ever became ill without wanting to be ill at some earlier moment in his life. Here is a polio case, in bed two years. She became ill because she felt sorry for another little girl who got polio and so decided to get it herself. It was a clear-cut decision, followed by two years in bed." Now that paragraph might be religious as it indeed requires a lot of "faith" to accept it as a true fact of "this science". Can anyone in the ars community confirm that becoming ill has to do with having wanted to be ill at an earlier time in life? What with people who have AIDS? THE FIFTEENTH ACT (last chapter) asks for comments about the book to be sent to the publications organization (then at famous Thistle Street in Edinburgh, Scotland) and also lists the following items to be answered: "My current state of health (physical) was as follows before I used this book. "My state of health is now: "My chronic complaint was and (has been) (has not been) alleviated. If one had any doubt that the book has anything to do with physical healing matters, that would probably be the final proof needed. Of course I would be unfair did I not quote the disclaimer the book has on page 10: "This book is not intended for the people who would usually seek help by reason of severe aberration, neurosis or insanity ......"
Back to main page