Supplement (Appendix) 1 – Homosexuality
Broadly the following is off the topic of CosmicHistory, but I am preserving it in this supplement or appendix.
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 14:02:09 -0700
Cc: "cosmichistory@lists.worldtrans ...snip...
lists.worldtrans.org>
From: Pete Mclaughlin
Subject: Intelligent
design drives evolution
To: Ant Phillips
Hi Ant
Dennis Stevens
provides an example of intelligent design driving evolution in the
book "02 the philosophy of TROM."
Sincerely
Pete
Here
is the example
Now over to the male. The high "must sex”
ionization on the male penis and the male testicles is quite obvious
and to be expected and doesn't need any further discussion but what
on earth is the male doing with his buttocks, his rump and his rectum
having a "must be sexed” ionization?
Thereby Hangs a
Tale
Ah thereby hangs a tale and we'll have to tell you this tale
so you'll understand this. This is the source of homosexuality in
males and it's a great puzzle to every male, and I have got to the
source of it. I do know where it comes from and I'll give you the
data. Once you understand where …...
AntEd: in my opinion it is rather long-winded, and not well thought out, but I include it at the end of this for those interested. AntEd
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:56:05 +1300
Subject: Re: [CosmicHistory] Homo-sexuality - +
"ionisation"
From: Leo Swart
To:
Ant Phillips
Cc:
cosmichistory@lists.worldtrans.org
I have audited I guess
about a dozen or so gay people, both male and female. Without
exception they all made the normal gains and progress that one
expects in any preclear - nothing at all out of the ordinary at all.
And I have not yet had any of them even hint at the thought that
being gay was something that needed to be "handled" in
auditing.
In understanding LRH and is rantings in Science
of Survival one need only bear in mind that culturally he was a
product of his time and his growing up in - where was it? - Montana
or North Boondocks, or what? Up there way beyond
Hicksville.
Leon
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:24 AM,
Ant Phillips <ant.phillips@post8.tele.dk>
wrote:
- [Coming to you via the CosmicHistory Internet list server]
- ---
- (This is off topic so will not go into the eventual summary/report on this list)
- Some one sent me privately the following with regard to homosexuality:
- "Although I am not homosexual (to my dismay, insofar it is an experience which is barred to me) I have observed that, in the rare instances in which I have audited homosexual persons the result has been that the homosexual person was happier to be homosexual and more satisfied with his/her life.
- The major action was to take the invalidations off and the group agreements off and... there wasn't any more problem to be handled.
- cheers"
- ****************************
To: Leo Swart
From: Ant Phillips
Cc:
cosmichistory@lists.worldtrans.org
Subject: Re: [CosmicHistory]
Homo-sexuality - + "ionisation"
[Coming to you via
the CosmicHistory Internet list server]
---
Dear all,
Very
interesting, Leo. I can understand getting charge because of the
opinions of others (evaluations) and that charge vanishing
(being handled with auditing). What I am interested in is in your
auditing of these people, was there any sign that the reason
for their being "gay" had was the result of charge which
got handled with auditing? In my case the tendencies I had
(attraction towards boys, cancer in penis, etc.) seem to me connected
with total inhibition of communication on sex and sexual organs, with
ten years of mystery and puzzling over why some boys penises were
different from others (circumcision), while not knowing that girls
did not have penises. The whole affair was much more complicated and
very weird. Since I have never audited homosexuals, I am still
curious about it. Your account looks as though the preclears
you audited only lost "guilt" about it, without any change
in the actual condition. Is that so?
In other words, is
homosexuality a natural condition? I think/feel that the area is
"difficult" because there is a pretty general inhibition
about talking about sex. I had the problem that when I finally
found out about it, and studied it in text books, etc. they used
words which the man in the street did not use, words used by
every day people varied very much (and I dared not ask when a strange
word came up, in case it was sexual, which communication inhibition
took me many years to get over). But my end conclusion was that
sexual feeling was very much desired, and it did not really matter
much whether you got it alone, or with a person of the same or
opposite sex. If you did it with the same sex for a while, that
became "normal" for you (what you put your attention on you
get).
Your remarks (below) about the reason for LRH rantings
seems very valid. You (unless born a *rebel') tend to do what
is generally accepted. Sort of to remain in ARC with the group (same
apparent reality. Group realities change rather slowly (and painfully
- equal rights for women has had a hard time :-) )
All best
wishes,
Ant
From: Roland Aldridge
Subject: Re:
[CosmicHistory] Homo-sexuality - + "ionisation"
To: Ant
Phillips
Cc:
"cosmichistory@lists.worldtrans ...snip...
lists.worldtrans.org>
I audited several gay people, a few
people who swung both ways, and one person who wasn't sure but had
come to the conclusion that he was asexual. The latter had a
huge win on a very simple process and next I heard had gotten
married. One person who had certainly thought he was gay got
married to a girl and was apparently happy about it, The swingers
basically decided to toe the line and behave themselves (at least at
that time!) and the other gay guy seemed just to be happy about
it.
So I think that people can do what they damn well like, but
they develop charge at other people's reactions to it, and also to
their own conflicts about the morality in which they were brought
up.
There is an LRH lecture in which he says that though it is
quite fun to audit a pretty girl's sexual peccadilloes, he never knew
it to actually do any good (i.e. pulling 2D overts). Also he
said that since there's such a hell of a lot of charge on the 2D,
trying to control it in others is doomed to failure. Of course
he changed his mind about that later!
Roland
Aldridge
On Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:48
AM, Ant Phillips
Very interesting, Leo. I can …..
From: Joe Warren
To:
cosmichistory@lists.worldtrans.org
Subject: Re: [CosmicHistory]
Homo-sexuality - + "ionisation"
[Coming to you via
the CosmicHistory Internet list server]
---
I've
audited gay people too and agree with comments already mentioned that
there is no issue outside of ARC breaks with others or moral codes
others have imposed on the individual (inval, etc.). I've never
encountered anyone who wanted to get 'cured'.
But one point
about LRH and Science of Survival... yes, he also was a product
of his time, but to put all homosexuals at 1.1 on the tone scale is
absurd. The main reason any gay person would be at that level
(directly associated with being gay) is because of society at that
time. In the 50's, gay people had to hide their orientation and
of course covertness was the result. It's easy to see the
actions of others towards gay people back then would cause strife for
a gay person (not to mention the decades up to present time).
But depending on where one lives and as society becomes hopefully
more evolved, this is/will become a non-issue.
Joe Warren Strength is nothing without skill and tech - LRH
On 3/27/2014 11:01 AM, Roland Aldridge wrote:
[Coming to you via the CosmicHistory Internet list server] ---
I audited several gay people, a few peo …
To: Leo Swart
From: Ant Phillips
Cc:
cosmichistory@lists.worldtrans.org
Subject: Re: [CosmicHistory]
Homo-sexuality - + "ionisation"
[Coming to you via
the CosmicHistory Internet list server]
---
At 02:20
29-03-2014, Leo Swart wrote:
Yes. And further - if Pilot equated homosexuality with merely an aberrated desire to be fucked in the arse - well Mein Gott he needs to wake up his ideas.
Make no mistake, Mr Leo -- that long, and to me rather
boring and "woolly thinking" piece about apes and rumps was
NOT the Pilot. [It is repeated in full at the end of this AntEd] A member of the list put it on, as a
contribution to the thread about our Cosmic History. At the
moment I am somewhat uncertain of what I will do when I make the
final summary of this final run through of the Pilots Cosmic
history. The resulting thread about homosexuality I found
extremely interesting, but was more a Scientology therapy matter than
concerned with Cosmic History.
The thing about "rumps"
and homosexuality was contributed by a list member, and was written
by Dennis Stephens. Lets get our sources correctly
identified.
All best wishes,
Ant
P.S.
I appreciate the time auditors have spent writing their conclusions
with regard to handling homosexual people. It answered some of my
questions. What still seems to be lacking is a pointer as to
whether these auditors saw any sign that a tendency to homosexuality
being inherited, and here I think one could differentiate between
inherited through chromosomes (genes) and the contagion of
aberration. When dealing with pædofils, for example, there
seems to be some agreement that people with pædofil tendencies have
been sexually mishandled as children (contagion of aberration), and
any auditor considering this would need to differentiate between
chromosomes and traumatic sexual experiences. I'd appreciate
more feedback.
From: Roland Aldridge
Subject: Re:
[CosmicHistory] Homo-sexuality - + "ionisation"
Date:
Sat, 29 Mar 2014 06:12:27 -0700
To: Ant Phillips
Regarding this, I don't
have any data from auditing to answer with, but I do have my
experience in an English "Public School", the equivalent of
a private school in the US.
It was very apparent that pretty boys
would be seduced by older boys, would like the experience once they
got over their moral qualms if any, and would then seduce other boys
in their turn. Some boys would move on but others apparently would
remain gay, as far as I could see. I didn't hear of boys
joining in that subculture later in their lives, mostly it seemed
they either got into it first thing or they didn't.
I have no
idea if this holds true nowadays, but the impression I get is that
people in the US mostly seem to grow up that way rather than be
seduced into it. I do wonder if that perception is true, or if it
happens the way it did in my school.
Roland Aldridge
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 14:02:09 -0700
Cc:
"cosmichistory@lists.worldtrans ...snip...
lists.worldtrans.org>
From: Pete McLaughlin
Subject: Intelligent
design drives evolution
To: Ant Phillips
Hi Ant
Dennis Stevens
provides an example of intelligent design driving evolution in the
book "02 the philosophy of TROM."
Sincerely
Pete
Here
is the example
Now over to the male. The high "must sex”
ionization on the male penis and the male testicles is quite obvious
and to be expected and doesn't need any further discussion but what
on earth is the male doing with his buttocks, his rump and his rectum
having a "must be sexed” ionization?
From:
Pete McLaughlin
To:
cosmichistory@lists.worldtrans.org
Subject: [CosmicHistory]
[Coming
to you via the CosmicHistory Internet list server]
---
Dennis
Stephens defines ionization as a mass that is charged with a
postulate.
In the article that I posted the sex organs are
charged with the postulate "to sex" for the male and "to
be sexed" for the female sex organs.
Just as a neon lamp
glows with light when the gas in it is ionized the sex organs "glow"
with sexuality when charged with the postulates to sex and to be
sexed.
Everybody knows that a pretty girl glows with
sexiness.
I posted the article because it presents the theory
that evolution could be driven by emotionally charged experiences.
This was a novel idea to me. Science seemed to me to believe that
evolution is driven by random variations in the DNA of offspring
which puts life at effect of its bodies. I like the idea that life is
at cause in producing its bodies.
Sincerely
Pete
Sent
from my iPad
Thereby Hangs a Tale
Ah
thereby hangs a tale and we'll have to tell you this tale so you'll
understand this. This is the source of homosexuality in males and
it's a great puzzle to every male, and I have got to the source of
it. I do know where it comes from and I'll give you the data. Once
you understand where it comes from it will stop bothering you.
Now
to understand it we have to go and look back to creatures living in
the wild. If you examine various creatures living in the wild in
colonies particularly herbivores, creatures like stags, kangaroos and
so forth you'll find in their mating season there is an enormous
carnage or loss of young males in fights.
They get into fights.
This is well known, you can read it up in any book on zoology and you
can go out into the wild and see these deer's fighting each other
during the mating season.
What happens is that the mature male
deer, he's a big fella and he collects a harem. He has his own harem
of female deer and he guards them quite possessively.
The young
males grow up and as they grow up to be sexually mature they cast
envious eyes on the big bucks harem, you see? And all the time
they're nosing around and trying to get a bit of sex from these
female deer of his harem, and, of course, he doesn't care for this
one little bit. So they end up in fights and you find the stags
fighting.
Well the fights are to the death amongst stags and
amongst kangaroos.
Kangaroos have got exactly the same mating
habits and the fights are to the death amongst the kangaroos too.
And unfortunately the young stags stand no chance against these
big stags and they just simply get slaughtered. If they are not
slaughtered their maimed and go away to die in misery and the whole
thing is very wasteful of the young male breeding stock.
You
might argue, of course, well it's nature's reding of tooth and claw,
it's survival of the fittest. Yes, yes but it's still wasteful if it
can be avoided.
You see a species survives best if it reserves
it's fighting for creatures which aren't of its own species. In other
words, when a species starts to fight amongst itself it's an
inefficient scene because its fighting its own species, you see, it's
fighting itself. It survives much better, a species does, if it
reserves it's fighting for creatures that are not of its own species.
You understand me?
So when I say it's wasteful, I mean exactly
that, it's very wasteful and the stags and the kangaroo's have never
solved this problem, but the apes did. They solved it.
Now the
problem also exists among predator's lions and tigers, they've got
similar mating habits. Now they've solved it too but their solution
is quite a different solution to the ape solution. So it doesn't
concern us.
The apes solved it and we're interested in that
because the apes are mankind's immediate ancestors. We're descended
from the apes at a physical body level so we're very interested in
the ape's solution to that problem and it's very relevant to this
subject of the feminine ionization on the rear end of the male human.
Now there's no doubt that some millions and millions of years ago
the ape too suffered this carnage amongst their ape colonies every
year in the mating season. The young adolescent apes would come up
and there'd be the big ape there with his harem and the young
adolescent would be driven by his sexual urges to fight the big fella
and he would almost invariably lose. He would lose and carnage would
occur. But the apes, possibly because the apes were a little bit
smarter than many other animals, came up with a solution to it. And
their solution worked.
We can imagine a hypothetical scene, that
one day some young adolescent ape was fighting to the death with the
large ape who owned the harem and it had got to the point where he
realized that he was being slaughtered and if the fight continued he
was going to get killed. So he, in desperation, said to himself,
"Well what the hell, is there any way I can prevent myself from
getting killed here? This big fella's going to kill me and he's not
going to relent until he's killed me. I can't do anything about it.”
So in final desperation he suddenly remembered, this young
adolescent ape had watched the female apes and he realized that the
male ape, the dominant male ape, could always be appeased by a female
ape.
This is true in the ape kingdom, the female ape can always
appease the angry male ape by presenting her rump to him. Soon as she
presented her rump to him, he mounts her sexually, makes a few pelvic
thrusts and dismounts and honor is satisfied, you might say, and he
goes his way, and she goes her way.
And this adolescent ape
millions and millions of years ago fighting the big ape he must have
realized this. The adolescent must have spotted this and in
desperation to save his own life he offered his own rump to the male
ape, and the male ape, of course, once a rump is offered to him he
immediately assumes that this must be a female he's fighting so he
did the thing his native conditioning would cause him to do. He
simply mounted the adolescent male ape made a few pelvic thrusts
dismounted and went his way.
We can presume that the adolescent
male ape must have breathed a sigh of relief, he saved his life and
more importantly his solution worked so next time he came along to
the harem he knew how to save his life. He had experience, he had the
experiential factor here of knowing how to solve the problem. He
could fight to the point where he was losing the battle. Then he knew
that he could always end the fight by acting as a female.
And so
he no doubt used this mechanism there. But other eyes were watching
him, lots and lots of other apes were watching.
As in any other
animal colony, there are lots and lots of youngsters who watch the
fights with great interest. It's of great significance to them these
fights are and lots of young male apes must have been watching this
adolescent ape when he presented his rump and they learnt too, and
they spotted it so when their turn came to try and become the leader
of the tribe and take on the big fella, they learnt how to save their
life too. And, because apes are pretty smart. They were pretty quick
learners, you know, for things like that and it got into their
culture and it spread.
Now why would it spread through the ape
colony, through the ape culture?
Well simply because those who
practiced it, those who practiced this system survived. The
adolescent ape who practiced this system survived and the adolescent
ape who practiced it, he eventually would grow up and become a fully
mature male ape and would go off and get a harem of his own.
If
he didn't practice this system there's a good 80% chance that he'd
get slaughtered and he would never survive and his genes would never
be passed on to posterity. So the ones that adopted this system had
their genes passed on to posterity, the ones who didn't survive
didn't have their genes passed on.
So after a few thousands of
generations of apes you would expect to find by pure Darwinian
evolution that all the apes in the colonies in the area would be
practicing this same system. This solution to the problem of how to
stop the carnage.
Now, you might ask, "Well it's a good solution
for the adolescent male ape but how does it benefit the big fellow?
Does it help him?”
Yes, it does, as a matter of fact, it's a
good solution for him cause look, as soon as the adolescent ape whose
fighting him for dominance quits the fight and offers his rump he's
gone into the female universe. He's offering his rump up with a "must
be sexed” postulate on it. So he's become feminine. And while the
adolescent ape is in the feminine universe he can't be in the
masculine universe because of the double bind. Follow?
[The
must be female and not male double bind - editor]
So as far as the
big fellow is concerned he can keep all the adolescent apes in the
community in the feminine valence, if he can keep them in the
feminine valence they are not in the masculine valence, or , let's
not use valence we'll use universe, while they are in the feminine
universe they are not in the masculine universe and if there not in
the masculine universe they are not interested in his female harem.
They leave his females alone. You see?
So it does benefit him
too. So it benefits both of them. The young apes get benefited, it
saves their lives. The older ape gets benefited as it stops these
youngsters pestering his flock all the time. He just has to assert
his authority once or twice, they use the mechanism and after that
the feminine ionization is there and that's it.
Then he can leave
them amongst his females, they won't interfere while there in the
feminine valence and their likely to stay in the feminine universe
while he's present and as he never strays very far away from his
harem, just his presence keeps these adolescents in the feminine
universe, keeps them out of their masculine universe. So it works for
all parties concerned, you see.
And it's purely a male thing,
it's got nothing to do with the females, I mean, the reason that the
female ape gets her rump and her rectum ionized with a "must be
sexed” postulate is because of the close proximity of these body
parts to her vulva and her vagina.
In fact in sexual play with
apes she almost certainly gets her rectum entered many, many times by
sheer accident and so you quite expect the female ape would have a
positive "must be sexed” ionization on her rump and on her
rectum. It would be quite natural for this to be. So it doesn't
concern the female at all.
In other words she always did know how
to appease the male, she simply presented her rump to him. It was the
young males who had to learn how to do it to save their lives.
And they did learn, and most importantly for our purposes, the
purposes of human beings, is that we are related to them. And we are
the descendants of those apes and we have the same physiological
ionization.
You see it wasn't long for these apes before they were
being born with this ionization. It can happen by genetics. That
eventually all the males in the colony by usage and by games play
would end up with a "must be sexed” ionization of the rump. Well,
that could only go on for a few thousand years, after that they'd be
born with a positive ionization, it's the way the body is. You
know?
You can find this in any book on evolutionary theory, by
simple usage the body adapts to it eventually. And so we would expect
the male apes would be born with a positive "must be sexed” on
their rumps and rectums. And today male human beings are the same,
they are just born with it, born with that ionization.
Now the
problem is, although this mechanism is of tremendous survival value
to the apes in their colonies. The feminine ionization on the rump
and rectum on the male is of no earthly use in our society. You see
that? The things just a complete nuisance and because nobody knows
where it comes from, you can't look it up in a book anywhere and find
out about it cause all these sexual postulates are a mystery. Nobody
knows about ionization of body parts because they're not aware of
them. The whole things just a complete mystery.
We have a vast
number of human males wandering around the planet believing they are
homosexual because they're aware of this positive ionization on their
rear end, the positive feminine ionization. The thing becomes a
psychological nightmare.
Just as the female tends to dissociate
from the front of her body we find the male tends to dissociate from
the rear of his body. His masculine identity tends to be at the front
of his body associated with his penis and testicles and this bit
behind him, he comes to dissociate himself from.
He can't be both
in the class of "to sex” and in the class of "to be sexed”
the double bind says so. He can't do it, so he has to dissociate. If
he's in the class of self and the self is in the class of "must
sex” then the "must be sexed” component on his rear end must be
in the class of not self. There's the dissociation.
Now we have
the perfect dissociation and this is what happens with the male, and
the male easily goes into homosexuality.
Similarly with the
female, she can associate with the masculine ionization on the
clitoris and easily go into lesbianism, which is just as great a
mystery to the female as homosexuality is to the males.
So by
examining this subject of ionization we have an immediate solution to
two of the greatest sexual problems that have been with human beings
for millennia, the subjects of lesbianism and homosexuality, we see
where it comes from.
Now, you might say, if this is so, how come
the zoologists haven't spotted it? I mean they have been studying
these apes intensively for the last 50 years and for the last 100,
150 years casually. Why haven't they spotted it?
Well, of course
they're aware of the mating habits of the ape. They know all about
the male apes turning the rump to the dominant male who owns the
harem. They know all about it, it's written up in all the zoology
books. But what they don't know about, and what we know about, is the
four sexual postulates of the "to sex” goals package. And we also
know about this subject of body ionization, the ionization of body
parts, that the zoologists don't know anything about so they cannot
correlate the subject of the mating habits of the ape, they cannot
correlate that with homosexuality in the male. Follow?
There's
simply no way they can do it because the missing links in the chain
are the postulates of the "to sex” goals package and the whole
subject of the sexual ionization of human body parts. Once you know
of the ionization of the body parts it sticks out like a sore thumb.
It's obvious why; it's obvious where he gets his feminine ionization
of his rump from. And it's equally obvious that he isn't going to
erase it in therapy, it's a genetic thing, it's quite natural.
There's no good in fighting it. He's born with it and he will die
with it, just as the female is born with the male ionization on her
clitoris. She's born with it and will die with it and so she might as
well learn to live with it. There's nothing odd about it, nothing odd
about the males' feminine ionization of his rump.
Now this is it.
If you understand this, really get it, it would help you enormously
to take the "to sex” goals package apart. If you don't understand
it or you fight it or reject it as you might well do, then I can
assure you, you simply won't get the "to sex” goals package apart
in therapy. Now you understand me?
I'm not making this up, I'm not
a writer of science fiction. I'm simply a research psychologist and
this data has popped up when I've been researching the subject of sex
and you need the data. You need the data because you will use the
data in order to erase the "to sex” goals package in therapy
OK,
well now we've got this absolutely clear.
[End of what Dennis Stephens wrote]
Date: Wed, 26
Mar 2014 10:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland
Aldridge
To: Pete Mclaughlin
Subject: Re:
[CosmicHistory] Ionization
[Coming to you via the
CosmicHistory Internet list server]
---
OK, thanks for
clarifying that (Dennis Stephens defines ionization as a mass that is
charged with a postulate.)
Regarding evolutionary theory,
Science does not actually define what causes any particular change.
The cause has nothing to do with it. Evolution happens when any
particular change turns out to result in greater survival of the
offspring of the organism - if whatever caused the change was in any
way inheritable, then the offspring will be selected for that
characteristic.
So for example, in humans, since offspring are
preferentially generated by uneducated women, if the tendency to be
uneducated is heritable even if only for cultural reasons, the human
race will become progressively less well educated in aggregate.
This tendency will be reversed if we simply decide to educate people
anyway, in which case this evolutionary force will no longer be
effective.
In terms of the gay lifestyle, if more kids are born to
people who experiment with that and who regard it as OK, and who
educate their kids to think the same, then that tendency will
increase in the human population. Alternatively, if those
people don't have kids but are effective in promoting that lifestyle,
then that lifestyle will become more common as well, and we will have
cultural as opposed to biological evolution.
Really, and this
is the thing to get straight, evolution simply and only says that
things that survive (and have offspring) survive, and things that
don't don't. Thus changes that help survival survive, and changes
that don't don't. It's really not difficult. The reasons for
the survival are irrelevant, only the actual survival
counts.
Roland Aldridge