Scientology claims to possess the only workable mental health technology. These pages, however, show the pathetic mental state to which Scientology drove one of its members. This site is not affiliated with the Church of Scientology.

> >[query from Jeff Lee]
> >> If that's true, what definition do you give to those things which are
> >> labelled "insanity" by the wog world? (for example, schizophrenia,
> >> dissociative identity disorder, megalomania, etc.)

> >[Koos]
> >These are words used by those professions that themselves
> > can not confront insanity. Therefore they need these
> > undefinable words, in order to hide their inability to look
> > at people's intentions.

>[query]
> You did not answer the question. I'll rephrase it; perhaps you
> misunderstood a word. What label would you give to a person who
> is exhibiting the signs of what wogs (not just psychiatrists) refer
> to as insanity? (This is not your definition of insanity, but the
> way the word is used in the wog world.)

You mean insanity defined as having a reality or perceptions
 like psi-phenomena or whatever,
 which are different than what is taught in Kindergarten or
 Primary school.

I would be very interested, like most people, what this
 person has to say or what he has perceived, as I would
 be very interested to learn from others what I do not
 know myself.

>[query]
> It seems to me that if you continually redefine words to have meanings
> incompatible with those used by the rest of the world, then you are
> deliberately introducing M/Us by using those words in conversation with
> a wog. Does that make any sense to you?
> 

It makes sense to me that some people believe that
 "all the rest of the world thinks" like themselves.

I have found this to be NOT true at all.

People have very very different ideas and perceptions,
 one to the other.

> >> [query]
> >> I disagree. When Marconi invented radio, for example, he did not
> >> pull his invention out of a different reality; nor did he alter this
> >> reality (except by making more of its preexisting properties known to
> >> us).

> >[Koos]
> >The reality was that radio-waves did not exist.

> [query]
> Incorrect. Natural radio waves exist in abundance - for example, from
> stellar objects such as pulsars. Marconi invented a means of generating
> and receiving ordered patterns of interference along a wavelength.
> 

The reality was, the agreed upon reality at the time of Marconi,
 was that radio-waves did not exist.

> >[Koos]
> >That Jeff Lee believed Marconi, does not mean that others
> > also believed Marconi.
> >But after some time, some people were willing to accept
> > that it was in fact possible to communicate by radio.

>[query]
> And why were they willing to accept it? Because it could easily be
> demonstrated. If Marconi had continued to make his claims that he
> was able to communicate over long distances without wires, but could
> not prove his claim to other people, would he be believed?
 
> >[Koos]
> >Not different with telepathy.
>
>[query]
> You're right. When it can be demonstrated to me, I'll believe it.

I have written many easily followed accounts of this.

But it has no use for you, and you can not yourself do it.
 So there is no use really in whether you believe it or not.

> I'll give you an opportunity: since you claim to be able to audit
> people telepathically, here's a very simple test.
> 
> I have written a single word upon a piece of paper and taped it to my
> monitor. If you can tell me what the word is, I will believe you
> completely.
> 

I have no telepathic link with you, nor any interest to establish one.
 Nor am I in the business of telling everyone what they have written
 on their computer-monitors in order that they may then pretend to
 "believe me completely".

I have published a considerable amount of reports on things and people
 which did interest me and which may be of use to Mankind.

They certainly are of use to those who take responsibility for Mankind.

> >[Koos]
> >The reality was that the Earth is the center of the universe.
> >etc. etc.

> [query]
> No. The belief was that the Earth was the centre of the universe.
> A mistaken belief does not alter reality. Beliefs may alter the
> perception of reality, but they do not alter reality itself.
> 

The reality, the enforced reality for many centuries was that
 the Earth is the center,
I even believe that the agreed upon reality was that the sphere
 was actually flat.

There is a vast amount of agreed upon enforced realities,
 and inventors and explorers and artists are often
 the ones to undo or expose these.

Sometimes they wind up being declared insane or
 burnt at the stake or bought by those that enforce agreed upon
 realities for the sake of controlling people and keeping
 them stupid and so on.

> [query]
> I am beginning to suspect that your definition of "reality" is not
> the same as my definition of "reality", and that is why our viewpoints
> seem at such great odds.
> 

There are several definitions.

One is what is agreed upon by "the society" as true.
 This of course very much depends upon one's educational
 level and what different circles one frequents,
 which parts of "society" one frequents,
 and one's desire to learn or absorb new realities.

This definition is what you use to prove others wrong who
 have a different reality than you and your company.

Another definition is: what IS, is reality.
This you use to make your company or circles right
 for pretending to know all there is to know, and to
 try to dominate others in doing the understanding for
 you and then "proving" things to you you don't want
 to look at yourself.

 This you use to tell me that Marconi was NOT insane.
 Because you can now switch on radio's.
 I wonder what you would have said a hundred years
 ago, when someone would have told you about
 invisible waves?

You are using these definitions alternately, in order
 to prove yourself right and others wrong who
 have currently a different reality than you have now

> >[Koos]
> >I think you are trying an attempt to prove me wrong and that
> > what I write is only in my own mind, and that it is of no use
> > to anyone else, and that I did not create any effect.
> >
> >I consider this an insanity of yours,
> 
>[query]
> You are making claims which contradict the observable properties of the
> reality in which I (and most people)

"most" people is used most viciously and destructively by you,
 in order to enforce your own reality and destroy those of others.

> spend our lives. I am open-minded,
> but before I can believe such a thing, I want to see evidence of it, or
> at least hear a plausible explanation of it. And when the claims I hear
> do not make sense to me, I say so.
> 

Why not. So it does not make sense to you, but

> >[Koos]
> > as you are not
> > willing to examine my data -

> [query]
> I'm perfectly willing to examine your data. That's why I'm asking for
> more data on the things which don't make sense to me.

> > [Koos]
> > you can't even audit -

> [query]
> I can't build a computer chip, but I see that they work, and I use them
> every day.
> 

Not different with auditing.

> >[Koos]
> > but ARE trying to accept and enforce the data presented or
> > created by OTHERS
> > whose life (like the criminals of OSA) seems to depend on
> > having to hide or disprove
> > what I found out.
> 
> 
> >> >[Koos]
> >> >Past lives, etc. Well, what can I say.

> >>[query]
> >> I suppose that's something that one must experience for oneself; it's
> >> pretty hard to prove to another.

> >[Koos]
> >These are very easy to prove. I think almost any library
> > has material on that.
> >You can also go and look at your own past lives, but you
> > have been too big a coward to do so up to now.
 
>[query]
>  Had you really been attempting to
> lead me to truth, you might have been more helpful in telling me how
> to "look at my own past lives".

The matter is very simple. Just doing ARC-straightwire
 from the book Self Analysis, and doing New Era Dianetics,
 for instance, will get you there in no time.

But - as I said - you are too big a coward to examine
 my data, because you will not do the very easy steps
 necessary to find out about your own past lives, or
 to increase your perception of others.

This then ends the discussion by unwillingness
 to examine data presented, but instead crying for
 more and more data in order to cover up that
 unwillingness.

If you want to believe the Earth is flat, so be it.
Only if you get out your telescope yourself, and
 do some looking yourself, you might get to
 understand for yourself that it is round.

Until that time you will, and have to rely on
 what your circle of people you choose as
 your "society", tells you to think.

You don't believe in electron spin, till someone
 you consider "society" tells you to believe it,
 tells you that it exists.

Koos

Koos Nolst Trenite - Ambassador for Mankind
Copyright 1996 by Koos Nolst Trenite