Bill Ryan's personal Question-and-Answer thread. Pile it on. :)

[Wilbur2]

Bill,

Do you go into your Scientology history somewhere? I'm sure you must have narrated this somewhere already, but I don't seem to be able to find it. I think I remember reading somewhere that you were/(are?) involved with Ron's Org, but I was curious about whether you'd ever been involved with the Church of Scientology itself. One reason I ask is that I was involved with the CoS when I was in my teens and early 20s (back in the late 80s/early 90s). I also exchange occasional emails with Max Hauri. I'm on the Ron's Org mailing list - though I've never taken any services with them.

Frankly, I still don't know what to make of Hubbard. Some days I think the Scientology stuff is very insightful. Other days I swear that Hubbard was a lying-faced conman, and that Scientology was just his final sci-fi novel. The first time I saw Hubbard, in that interview he did that they sell as the "Introduction to Scientology" video, I thought, "Yeah, he looks and sounds like a lying-faced conman". But there are some things, like the misunderstood word tech and the study phenomena, which don't seem to have been covered anywhere else, that I can't deny work. I wouldn't personally go anywhere near the CoS again, but I'd be interested in anything you've written on your experiences in/with Scientology.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Wilbur2 (here)
I agree that advertising is immoral. I have a simple economic argument for why it is immoral, that I've never heard anyone else make, but seems so obvious to me. I might write the argument up at some point.... My position is less extreme than Bill's - I'd say that advertising that simply informs you of the existence of a product, and its functionality, can be valuable. But advertising that tries to persuade amounts to hypnotism.

If we look back at human history all over the world, we see numerous social practices which were unquestioned at the time and accepted as perfectly normal and justifiable, just part of regular society back then.

But in many cases, with our 'civilized' eyes now, we regard them with quite some horror.

The analogy applies to our present day. There are so many aspects of how we live now which are equally unquestioned — by almost anyone at all — and which, we might hope in some future time, humans will look back on with equal bewilderment at how such things could be tolerated and regarded as 'just normal'.

There's a VERY long list. Advertising, and commercialization of almost everything, is just one of many things that are so weird and arguably unethical — but we just accept as perfectly acceptable and normal in every way — that future humans might just scratch their heads and wonder how we could not see it as it truly was.

As I've posted once or twice on different threads, we might have to take a look (if we can!) at how some far more enlightened ET societies live to help us make a useful comparison.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Wilbur2 (here)
Bill,

Do you go into your Scientology history somewhere? I'm sure you must have narrated this somewhere already, but I don't seem to be able to find it. I think I remember reading somewhere that you were/(are?) involved with Ron's Org, but I was curious about whether you'd ever been involved with the Church of Scientology itself. One reason I ask is that I was involved with the CoS when I was in my teens and early 20s (back in the late 80s/early 90s). I also exchange occasional emails with Max Hauri. I'm on the Ron's Org mailing list - though I've never taken any services with them.

Frankly, I still don't know what to make of Hubbard. Some days I think the Scientology stuff is very insightful. Other days I swear that Hubbard was a lying-faced conman, and that Scientology was just his final sci-fi novel. The first time I saw Hubbard, in that interview he did that they sell as the "Introduction to Scientology" video, I thought, "Yeah, he looks and sounds like a lying-faced conman". But there are some things, like the misunderstood word tech and the study phenomena, which don't seem to have been covered anywhere else, that I can't deny work. I wouldn't personally go anywhere near the CoS again, but I'd be interested in anything you've written on your experiences in/with Scientology.

We have quite a long thread, which some might find interesting, titled:

• Q and A about Ron Hubbard, Bill Robertson, Scientology, the Free Zone and Ron's Org

Briefly in reply to your post!

• I was never in the Church of Scientology.

• I began my journey in independent ('Free Zone') Scientology in 1984, after I'd spent a couple of years closely involved with Werner Erhard's est Training, which featured some remarkably powerful and insightful material. I discovered that Erhard had derived and adapted most of the processes and principles in his seminars from his own experiences in Scientology in the 1970s.

• A few years after that, in 1988, I discovered Bill Robertson's research that extended, developed and refined the extensive groundwork that had been established by Hubbard. I quickly realized how very effective and workable it was.

• Hubbard himself — who I never knew or had any contact with — was a kind of intuitive, self-taught genius who somehow uncovered a huge Aladdin's Treasure Trove of stuff that was very real indeed. But somewhere back then (maybe in the early 70s) he started to go off the rails with his totalitarian approach to structuring his organization. However, despite that, the developmental processes that he developed were authentic and really worked.

• What Bill Robertson did was:
  — (a) extract what did work so very effectively while discarding the rest;
  — (b) establish a totally different organizational structure (which he called 'Ron's Org') that was egalitarian and ethical in every way; and
  — (c) working with a small but very talented group of colleagues, research a whole bunch more processes and techniques that took the 'Bridge' to a far more extensive and far-reaching level.

• I knew Bill Robertson personally, and all the others that were active around him back then. He was a most impressive person. That was before Max Hauri (who currently runs Ron's Org) ever got involved. Max was actually just a little late to the party, as it were. Bill Robertson had founded Ron's Org in 1984, and did a vast amount of research between then and 1991 when he passed on.

• My own 'level' (i.e in the various sequences of processing that I've done and experienced) is termed in Ron's Org as 'SOL 1'. (Though I might actually be a little 'further', as it were. It's rather hard to measure!)

• Like any spiritual practice (which this certainly is), this journey of personal exploration takes time, focus and dedication. All I can say personally is that I've benefited hugely from this journey, more so than I can easily describe.

• If I may try to summarize what I feel I've gained — which is also not easy to do — I feel almost completely emotionally stable, I almost never get upset by anything at all (except for some events in the world which I read or hear about, which are a matter of pure empathy rather than any personal direct impact), I'm fairly psychic these days in a whole number of ways, and I have quite detailed knowledge of at a fair number of my past lives.

• And, maybe most importantly, I know with 100% total certainty that I'm an immortal, eternal being. It's not a belief, a rationalization, or some kind of hope or guess. It's direct personal knowledge. That alone, even without all the rest, is absolutely worth the journey.
  
  

[edina]

Hi Bill, I remember hearing how Scientology had determined or named about 52 senses. Maybe that was carried over into Ron’s org?

Do you know of the names of these other senses? If not, would you be able to point me in a direction where I may find them?

It’s been on my mind from time to time. Most people tend to think of senses in terms of the 5 senses, which in my mind is only a tiny range of the human instrument’s sensory systems.

And to include anyone else reading this, I remember listening to a video years ago where an Egyptologist casually mentioned that ancient Egyptians used 360 senses. I’ve not been able to find that video again, if anyone has seen it and can remember the name, I’d be happy to know it.

I’m most interested in building out a vocabulary of our sensory systems.
One word that comes to mind is our sense of proprioception (the proprioceptors in the bottom of my feet became hyper-senstive while I was on the Appalachian Trail.)
I think there are inward-directed senses, in addition to outward directed senses. For example, I can at times hear my own blood rushing through my brain, or my own heartbeat, which is a form of inner listening, which I feel will probably be key in developing and understanding telepathy as it becomes more common across humanity. I’ve noticed different sensation qualities in silences. (It probably involves more than listening, maybe more kinesthetic, or feeling, which may fall into the touch range of senses.)
We have the practices where people can learn to develop their ear, or their eye, or balance, and maybe even refine their sense of smell and taste. My thinking is that if humans have a better vocabulary for the extended range of senses, we can more consciously develop and fine-tune what the human body/instrument is capable of.
I consider all the the ‘clairs”, clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairsentience, to be descriptions of senses, too.

In looking closer at the topic while writing this I came across this site. It’s along these lines that I’m thinking about the topic, understanding and personal development.
https://www.twentyonesenses.org/about-the-senses/

[RunningDeer]

Posted by edina (here)
Hi Bill, I remember hearing how Scientology had determined or named about 52 senses. Maybe that was carried over into Ron’s org?

Do you know of the names of these other senses? If not, would you be able to point me in a direction where I may find them?

Great topic, edina. Thanks for bringing up.

Here is a list of the commonly recognized "higher senses” and “sub-senses,” often associated with intuitive or psychic abilities. Each is typically linked to one of the five physical senses. Included are the AI assisted links.

• Clairvoyance – Clear seeing (seeing images, visions, or symbols beyond normal sight)
• Clairaudience – Clear hearing (hearing voices, sounds, or messages not heard by others)
• Clairsentience – Clear feeling (feeling emotions or physical sensations not your own)
• Claircognizance – Clear knowing (knowing information without logical basis)
• Clairalience – Clear smelling (smelling scents with no physical source)
• Clairgustance – Clear tasting (tasting substances without physical contact)
• Clairempathy – Clear emotional feeling (sensing the emotional energy of people or places)

These are considered forms of extrasensory perception (ESP) in metaphysical or spiritual contexts and especially in fields like philosophy, psychology, and certain spiritual or holistic systems, suggest that humans have far more than the traditional five senses.

Here’s a general breakdown of the kinds of senses included in expanded models:

1. The traditional five senses:

• Sight
• Hearing
• Touch
• Taste
• Smell

2. Additional physical senses recognized by neuroscience and physiology:

• Balance (equilibrioception)
• Temperature (thermoception)
• Pain (nociception)
• Body awareness (proprioception)
• Internal senses (interoception: hunger, thirst, heartbeat, bladder fullness, etc.)

3. Emotional and intuitive senses:

• Sense of time
• Sense of self
• Sense of agency (knowing you are the cause of an action)
• Sense of familiarity or recognition
• Empathy (emotional resonance)
• Intuition or "gut feeling"

4. Metaphysical or psychic senses (often called "clair" senses):

• Clairvoyance (clear seeing)
• Clairaudience (clear hearing)
• Clairsentience (clear feeling)
• Claircognizance (clear knowing)
• Clairalience (clear smelling)
• Clairgustance (clear tasting)
• Clairempathy (clear emotional sensing)
• Telepathy (mind-to-mind communication)
• Psychometry (sensing information from objects)
• Precognition (knowing future events)
• Retrocognition (knowing past events)
• Mediumship (communicating with spirits)

5. Energetic or subtle senses (in some esoteric systems):

• Sensing energy fields (auras)
• Chakra sensitivity
• Earth connection or geomagnetic sense
• Animal communication
• Dream awareness/lucid dreaming
• Astral perception
• Spiritual guidance perception

Resources:

• * You have more than 5 human senses. How are you using yours? (21 human senses)
  
• 5, 9, 21, 53 … how many senses do we have?
  
• How Many Senses Do Humans Have? The Surprising Truth
  
• Do Humans Only Have Five Senses? (Any Other Non-traditional Senses?)
  
• We have many more than five senses
  
• How Many Senses Do We Have?
  
• The 5 human senses — and a few more you might not know about
  
• 6 kinds of taste
  
• We have more than five senses. A neuroscientist explains the hidden abilities we often overlook
  
• Senses special: Doors of perception

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by edina (here)
Hi Bill, I remember hearing how Scientology had determined or named about 52 senses. Maybe that was carried over into Ron’s org?

Yes, and here they all are. (57 named in all. Some of them are arguably a little obscure! But it's excellent food for thought. And I do think the senses shared by RunningDeer/Paula immediately above could be added to the list.)

1. Time
2. Sight
3. Taste
4. Color
5. Depth
6. Solidity (barriers)
7. Relative sizes (external)
8. Sound
9. Pitch
10. Tone
11. Volume
12. Rhythm
13. Smell
14. Touch (pressure, friction, heat or cold and oiliness)
15. Personal emotion
16. Endocrine states
17. Awareness of awareness
18. Personal size
19. Organic sensation (including hunger)
20. Heartbeat
21. Blood circulation
22. Cellular and bacterial position
23. Gravitic (self and other weights)
24. Motion of self
25. Motion (exterior)
26. Body position
27. Joint position
28. Internal temperature
29. External temperature
30. Balance
31. Muscular tension
32. Saline content of self (body)
33. Fields/magnetic
34. Time track motion
35. Physical energy (personal weariness, etc.)
36. Self-determinism
37. Moisture (self)
38. Sound direction
39. Emotional state of other organs
40. Personal position on the tone scale
41. Affinity (self and others)
42. Communication (self and others)
43. Reality (self and others)
44. Emotional state of groups
45. Compass direction
46. Level of consciousness
47. Pain
48. Perception of conclusions (past and present)
49. Perception of computation (past and present)
50. Perception of imagination (past and present)
51. Perception of having perceived (past and present)
52. Awareness of not knowing
53. Awareness of importance, unimportance
54. Awareness of others
55. Awareness of location and placement (masses, spaces and location itself)
56. Perception of appetite
57. Kinesthesia

[Kryztian]

1) Speaking of Scientology - where can one learn about it's cosmology: the history of universe, the history of Earth, the beings that are out there, etc. all according to Scientology. The place that one usually hears a satirical version of this is on the cartoon show South Park. Scientologists are kind of mum on this subject. I once did a hypnotic regression on my own and "experienced" or "remembered" the Big Bang and an ex-Scientologist about this to them and they replied "Oh, that's just recent history" and laughed. But they wouldn't tell me any more.

2) I also heard that shortly before he died that Hubbard said the stories about the Thetans and such are made up b.s. Is that true?

[edina]

Thank you both, Running Deer (Paula) and Bill!!!! Very, very much, Thank you.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Kryztian (here)
1) Speaking of Scientology - where can one learn about it's cosmology: the history of universe, the history of Earth, the beings that are out there, etc. all according to Scientology. The place that one usually hears a satirical version of this is on the cartoon show South Park. Scientologists are kind of mum on this subject. I once did a hypnotic regression on my own and "experienced" or "remembered" the Big Bang and an ex-Scientologist about this to them and they replied "Oh, that's just recent history" and laughed. But they wouldn't tell me any more.

My own view is that most of Hubbard's cosmology (and much of Bill Robertson's) is incorrect, and certainly hugely incomplete. (However, I do agree that the 'Big Bang' is 'recent history' regarding the universal timeline... and I actually doubt it ever happened at all.)

Posted by Kryztian (here)
2) I also heard that shortly before he died that Hubbard said the stories about the Thetans and such are made up b.s. Is that true?

I don't believe so!

[Wilbur2]

The South Park episode is a quite accurate representation of the confidential level that Scientologists call OTIII (Operating Thetan Level III). This level is their super-confidential level, and they used to go to great lengths to keep its content secret. Now, they can't really avoid the fact that anybody who wants to can look it up on the internet, including getting a copy of the actual level in Hubbard's own handwriting. Actually, they declared me a suppressive person because I did exactly that, and then showed it to some other Scientologists who were in a similar position to me - i.e., who sensed that there was something wrong with the organisation.

But OTIII is not the entire cosmology of Scientology - it's only supposed to explain how we got onto planet Earth, in a spiritually comatose state. The rest of its cosmology is mostly non-confidential, and scattered throughout various books (and very interesting). It's definitely worth reading about, but my advice would be stay well clear of the Church of Scientology, which is just (in my opinion) a money machine.

[Kryztian]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Kryztian (here)
1) Speaking of Scientology - where can one learn about it's cosmology: the history of universe, the history of Earth, the beings that are out there, etc. all according to Scientology. The place that one usually hears a satirical version of this is on the cartoon show South Park. Scientologists are kind of mum on this subject. I once did a hypnotic regression on my own and "experienced" or "remembered" the Big Bang and an ex-Scientologist about this to them and they replied "Oh, that's just recent history" and laughed. But they wouldn't tell me any more.

My own view is that most of Hubbard's cosmology (and much of Bill Robertson's) is incorrect, and certainly hugely incomplete. (However, I do agree that the 'Big Bang' is 'recent history' regarding the universal timeline... and I actually doubt it ever happened at all.)

But do you have a source for that information about information? Is it in a specific book or books? I know there is a lot of Scientology material in the Avalon Library.

[Wilbur2]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Wilbur2 (here)
Bill,

Do you go into your Scientology history somewhere? I'm sure you must have narrated this somewhere already, but I don't seem to be able to find it. I think I remember reading somewhere that you were/(are?) involved with Ron's Org, but I was curious about whether you'd ever been involved with the Church of Scientology itself. One reason I ask is that I was involved with the CoS when I was in my teens and early 20s (back in the late 80s/early 90s). I also exchange occasional emails with Max Hauri. I'm on the Ron's Org mailing list - though I've never taken any services with them.

Frankly, I still don't know what to make of Hubbard. Some days I think the Scientology stuff is very insightful. Other days I swear that Hubbard was a lying-faced conman, and that Scientology was just his final sci-fi novel. The first time I saw Hubbard, in that interview he did that they sell as the "Introduction to Scientology" video, I thought, "Yeah, he looks and sounds like a lying-faced conman". But there are some things, like the misunderstood word tech and the study phenomena, which don't seem to have been covered anywhere else, that I can't deny work. I wouldn't personally go anywhere near the CoS again, but I'd be interested in anything you've written on your experiences in/with Scientology.

We have quite a long thread, which some might find interesting, titled:

• Q and A about Ron Hubbard, Bill Robertson, Scientology, the Free Zone and Ron's Org

• My own 'level' (i.e in the various sequences of processing that I've done and experienced) is termed in Ron's Org as 'SOL 1'. (Though I might actually be a little 'further', as it were. It's rather hard to measure!)

[/LIST]

Bill,

I've been trying to figure out what "SOL 1" means. I thought I had a copy of the Ron's Org bridge chart somewhere, but I can't find it. I seem to recall that it stands for "Source Operating Level 1", or some such, but I don't recall where that fits on the RO Bridge. Is that one of those levels above their OT 16, i.e., above the solo-audited levels?

Best,
Wilbur2

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Kryztian (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Kryztian (here)
1) Speaking of Scientology - where can one learn about it's cosmology: the history of universe, the history of Earth, the beings that are out there, etc. all according to Scientology. The place that one usually hears a satirical version of this is on the cartoon show South Park. Scientologists are kind of mum on this subject. I once did a hypnotic regression on my own and "experienced" or "remembered" the Big Bang and an ex-Scientologist about this to them and they replied "Oh, that's just recent history" and laughed. But they wouldn't tell me any more.

My own view is that most of Hubbard's cosmology (and much of Bill Robertson's) is incorrect, and certainly hugely incomplete. (However, I do agree that the 'Big Bang' is 'recent history' regarding the universal timeline... and I actually doubt it ever happened at all.)

But do you have a source for that information about information? Is it in a specific book or books? I know there is a lot of Scientology material in the Avalon Library.

I don't think that's in any of the books. As best I know, it's all contained in confidential bulletins.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Wilbur2 (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Wilbur2 (here)
Bill,

Do you go into your Scientology history somewhere? I'm sure you must have narrated this somewhere already, but I don't seem to be able to find it. I think I remember reading somewhere that you were/(are?) involved with Ron's Org, but I was curious about whether you'd ever been involved with the Church of Scientology itself. One reason I ask is that I was involved with the CoS when I was in my teens and early 20s (back in the late 80s/early 90s). I also exchange occasional emails with Max Hauri. I'm on the Ron's Org mailing list - though I've never taken any services with them.

Frankly, I still don't know what to make of Hubbard. Some days I think the Scientology stuff is very insightful. Other days I swear that Hubbard was a lying-faced conman, and that Scientology was just his final sci-fi novel. The first time I saw Hubbard, in that interview he did that they sell as the "Introduction to Scientology" video, I thought, "Yeah, he looks and sounds like a lying-faced conman". But there are some things, like the misunderstood word tech and the study phenomena, which don't seem to have been covered anywhere else, that I can't deny work. I wouldn't personally go anywhere near the CoS again, but I'd be interested in anything you've written on your experiences in/with Scientology.

We have quite a long thread, which some might find interesting, titled:

• Q and A about Ron Hubbard, Bill Robertson, Scientology, the Free Zone and Ron's Org

• My own 'level' (i.e in the various sequences of processing that I've done and experienced) is termed in Ron's Org as 'SOL 1'. (Though I might actually be a little 'further', as it were. It's rather hard to measure!)

Bill,

I've been trying to figure out what "SOL 1" means. I thought I had a copy of the Ron's Org bridge chart somewhere, but I can't find it. I seem to recall that it stands for "Source Operating Level 1", or some such, but I don't recall where that fits on the RO Bridge. Is that one of those levels above their OT 16, i.e., above the solo-audited levels?

Best,
Wilbur2

Yes, SOL 1 = Source Operation Level 1. (There's also SOL 2, 3 and 4 which are beyond that.) And yes, that's a little beyond OT 16.

[Wilbur2]

Sorry to put you on the spot, Bill, but my follow-up question would be:

With the hindsight that you now have, would you still do the Ron's Org OT Bridge if you were back at the start of OT I now?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Wilbur2 (here)
Sorry to put you on the spot, Bill, but my follow-up question would be:

With the hindsight that you now have, would you still do the Ron's Org OT Bridge if you were back at the start of OT I now?

Absolutely. It was a life-changing and life-enhancing journey.

[Jaak]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

I very much feel that the community is also very much pro-Russia, pro-BRICS, pro-multipolarism, pro-Africa, and (with respect to the recent '12-day war') pro-Iran. It also acknowledges and celebrates Russia's successful multicultural integration — one of the very few countries to have been so successful, as I'd be sure you know.

I think couple of cultures that are on the edge of extinction might disagree with that statement . And by couple i mean dozens of them . Their culture, customs , language etc are being wiped out slowly and from my perspective this is not something to be celebrated.
In the list below there are couple of exceptions where their numbers have grown a bit but for most of them it is in deadly decline. Not the kind of multiculturalism i would like to be a part of .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleuts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alyutors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelkans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chukchi_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chulyms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuvans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolgans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evenki_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itelmens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izhorians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamchadals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kereks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ket_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koryaks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumandins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansi_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanai_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negidals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nivkh_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oroks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oroch_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selkup_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taz_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telengits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleuts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofalar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubalars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tozhu_Tuvans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udege_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulch_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veps_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukaghir_people

[Casey Claar]

Posted by Jaak (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

I very much feel that the community is also very much pro-Russia, pro-BRICS, pro-multipolarism, pro-Africa, and (with respect to the recent '12-day war') pro-Iran. It also acknowledges and celebrates Russia's successful multicultural integration — one of the very few countries to have been so successful, as I'd be sure you know.

I think couple of cultures that are on the edge of extinction might disagree with that statement . And by couple i mean dozens of them . Their culture, customs , language etc are being wiped out slowly and from my perspective this is not something to be celebrated.
In the list below there are couple of exceptions where their numbers have grown a bit but for most of them it is in deadly decline. Not the kind of multiculturalism i would like to be a part of .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleuts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alyutors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelkans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chukchi_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chulyms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuvans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolgans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evenki_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itelmens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izhorians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamchadals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kereks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ket_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koryaks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumandins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansi_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanai_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negidals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nivkh_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oroks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oroch_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selkup_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taz_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telengits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleuts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofalar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubalars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tozhu_Tuvans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udege_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulch_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veps_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukaghir_people

Now that's interesting. Thank you for providing this list of people's, Jaak, I am always interested in various cultures I've not previously heard of.

[Mike]

I'm not trying to nerd out on you Bill or be a grammar Nazi, but the word "multiculturalism" actually refers to different groups of people (different races, cultures. ethnicities, religions etc) existing in the same space but all in their own little bubbles, with no unifying values re the other cultures around them and no attempt to assimilate or integrate into the dominant culture.

In that way, Russia is indeed multicultural, but it's not really a good thing in my view. There's less violence there between Muslims and everyone else but mainly because Russia is so huge and a more punitive country that it's western counterparts (I wish the west was more punitive like Russia). If you took those same Muslims and Russians and squeezed them into the UK I think it would be just as much of a disaster.

I only found out what the word "multiculturalism" really meant maybe 1-2 years ago, so again I'm not lecturing anyone. But what most people really want to say when they use the word "multiculturalism" is the word "pluralism".

Or maybe you already knew all that and meant exactly what you meant

[Thevortexpurple]

Hey: I would consider being more involved with Free Range Scientology. I'm seriously considering the process. Do you know how or where I could get started? As in: Meeting people to work together towards that with?
I would like to be involved in person with meeting people and making more progress within Free Range Scientology.
I wanted to walk into the Church of Scientology building inside of New York. However, I was prevented somehow. I wanted to be involved, however I understand Free Range Scientology may be better from what I have seen. After all: I feel as if I would be quite constrained if I were to limit myself or join the actual Church itself.