KiwiAnon Forums

Ontopic Discussion => Ex-scientologists and Freezoners => Topic started by: Ididntcomeback on January 19, 2010, 07:53:38 AM

Title: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on January 19, 2010, 07:53:38 AM
Saturday, January 9, 2010
                           What Does Being "Pro-Scientology" Mean?

When I started this blog, my motivation was to clear up much of the misinformation and misunderstandings about Scientology and the Church of Scientology that were rampant at that time.  The bad information came not only from the church itself, but even a lot of the negative information about Scientology was incorrect as well.

I knew a lot, and I was in touch with many Scientologists and ex-Scientologists, so I felt compelled to clear up the confusion.

All I have endeavored to do was get the truth better known and to expose the lies.

Obviously, this would cause the Church of Scientology to consider me an Enemy.  The church is built on lies, misinformation and exaggeration and they didn't appreciate what so many, many people were doing.

Today there are many people who have left the church but who still firmly believe in the Scientology belief system.  One would think that, free from the systemic lies of the Church of Scientology, these people would seek to discover and live with the truth.  One would hope that Scientologists would seek to root out all lies from their lives.  After all, they are on the "Road to Truth".

So it is with considerable surprise that I find that my blog, Ask the Scientologist, is considered, by some true believers, to be "anti-Scientology".  I read that "true" Scientologists are being warned to avoid this blog at all costs.

Let me be very clear about this, I am not anti- the Scientology belief system.  Never have been.

However, I am pro-truth.

All I have asked from believers of Scientology is honesty.  It's a simple request: If a Scientology process, formula or procedure does not deliver what was promised for that process, formula or procedure, then don't claim that "it works"!  That's all.

This isn't about whether "Scientology works".  Whether it does work, or should work, or might work is not the point.  The point is whether or not the explicit promises made for various Grades, Rundowns, Levels, courses are actually delivered.

And, for a large majority of the services delivered by Scientology, the promised results are not delivered.

I experienced some good things in the early days.  But I can see -- anyone can see -- that the grandiose claims of Scientology on its Grade Chart, in its promotions, in conversations with Scientologists, are not happening.  I've listed many of these things before.  The actual results from public school students using the "Hubbard Study Method" have been analyzed and the technology does not detectably improve student results.  The actual results from Narconon show worse results than other methods.  Grade 0 Releases are not able to "talk to anyone on any subject".  Grade I Releases still have problems.  Graduates from the PTS/SP course can't handle antagonistic people or situations.  Clears and OTs do not have the promised abilities and powers. And so on and so on.  Whether Scientology could, possibly, produce those results is not the point.  The point is that it hasn't.

The Church of Scientology does something quite evil about this.  When a Scientologist does not receive the promised results from a Grade, Level, course or Rundown, the church says it is the Scientologist's fault, and has them pay for their own "correction".  When the Scientologist still does not receive the results promised by the church, the church again blames the Scientologist and has them pay to redo everything.  This goes on and on with the church forcing Scientologists to pay and pay and pay and never delivering what was promised.  And all the time blaming the Scientologist for the missing results.

Finally, when it becomes obvious that the church will never deliver what was promised, and the Scientologist has run out of money, the church blames the Scientologist, saying the Scientologist is "too out-ethics" and kicks them out.

This policy of the Church of Scientology of blaming their customers for the church's failures ultimately destroys Scientologists.  Many Scientologists end up firmly believing that they are evil, they are the cause of the failures, they are "degraded beings" and "suppressive".

This is so very wrong.

All I'm asking of the true believers of Scientology who wish to practice and promote the Scientology belief system outside of the church is that they don't do that.

If those who believe in the Scientology technology want to stop destroying people, then they need to promise only results that they can actually, provably and consistently produce.  They need to actually deliver every result promised -- and if they don't deliver it they must not blame the customer.  And they need to stop claiming results for Scientology that Scientology has not delivered.

Believe what you want but only promise what you can, for certain, deliver.  And then always deliver what you promised.

That is living with the truth.  That is honesty.

Now, if that request is "anti-Scientology", then you Scientology true believers have major problems -- because all I'm asking for is honesty and truth.  If that's unacceptable to Scientologists, then that says worse things about Scientology than any real anti-Scientology blog or site ever did.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on March 03, 2010, 07:59:45 PM
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Scientology's "Investigations"
I am so glad the Church of Scientology has staged their "independent investigation" of the St. Petersburg Times.

Of course it's a blatant attempt to intimidate the journalists who have been doing such a good job exposing the church's crimes, abuse and fraud, and the St. Petersburg Times is absolutely correct in refusing to have anything to do with it.

And, of course, the Church of Scientology can never release the "investigation", because it, obviously, would have shown that the journalists did a good job.

But I'm still glad the church did it, because it reminded me of many of the other "independent investigations" they did.

While not quite the same, they are still delightful stories.

One of my favorites is the independent investigation of Scientology's "Purification Rundown".  Non-Scientology doctors were paid by the Church of Scientology to thoroughly test the Purification Rundown and determine how effective (and wonderful) it was.  As with the St. Petersburg Times investigation, the church swore everyone involved to absolute secrecy -- only the church could publish the results.

This investigation was going to put all the critics and naysayers in their place!  This investigation was going to be the basis for a gigantic push to get the Purification Rundown accepted everywhere.

You've surely read the comprehensive Purification Rundown report, haven't you?

You haven't?  Oh, that's right, the Church of Scientology suppressed that report.  Do you need to ask why?

Here's the kicker:  What did the church do when the Purification Rundown was proven, in their own tests, to be bogus?  Did they cease selling and delivering the service?  Did they refund all the monies paid for this proven bogus service?

Nope.  The Purification Rundown is still required for every Scientologist.  They are still pushing their Narconon program, which is based on the Purification Rundown, as the replacement for all other drug treatment programs.

Next:  They did the same thing with their "Hubbard Study Technology".  Another independent investigation sponsored by the church and involving non-Scientology teachers and students -- carefully monitored and tested by independent researchers.  Again, everyone was sworn to secrecy -- only the Church of Scientology could release the results.

You've read that report haven't you?  Oh, that's right, that report was suppressed by the church as well.  Color me surprised.

And, of course, the kicker:  They are still pushing the proven bogus "Hubbard Study Technology" as the replacement for all other study methods.

I'm sure there are even more examples of independent investigations, funded by the Church of Scientology, that never made the light of day.  This latest investigation is just more of the same.  It won't be released.

Regular Scientologists don't know this, but the leaders of Scientology know all about these investigations and their results.

The horrible thing is, they don't care that their "solutions" are proven, by their own research, to be useless and worthless.  They still sell them.  And they still work very hard to throw out all other solutions.  This goes well beyond innocent belief and faith.  When they know their own "solutions" do not work and they still sell them, that is intentional fraud.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on March 03, 2010, 08:01:27 PM
Tuesday, February 23, 2010

           True Believers Confirm That Scientology Is Very Weak

According to the True Believers of Scientology, the Scientology technology is absolutely perfect, 100% effective, a solution to everything, and ...

    incredibly weak.

Let me explain this carefully, because the facts speak for themselves.

There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of True Believers who say "Standard Scientology" is absolutely, positively 100% effective.  A vast majority of these self-proclaimed "appliers of standard Scientology" were in the Church of Scientology when David Miscavige was in charge.  They were there as Miscavige destroyed the church and perverted the technology.

And, (this is key) these Standard Scientologists insist that all the problems and failures of the church are all Miscavige's fault.  All the failures, crimes, perversions and abuse are not failings of the Scientology technology, which is "perfect", but the fault of only one man: David Miscavige.

These Scientologists vehemently insist that there is no fault in Scientology, and, if Miscavige were removed all would be well.

Let's go over this very carefully.  Here we have hundreds, maybe even thousands of self-proclaimed "appliers of Standard Scientology", applying this Standard Scientology technology within the Church of Scientology  -- and they were defeated by one man.  All Standard Scientology being applied by these hundreds of Scientologists was no match for one evil man, apparently applying his Super Evil Technology.

That's pretty amazing.  According to them, Scientology is one incredibly weak technology -- one man defeating hundreds of Standard Scientologists.

But that's not all.

According to standard Scientology, any Scientologist who has any contact at all with anyone who has expressed any disagreement with or criticism of Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard will have trouble, will get sick, and will lose their gains from Scientology.  The higher up the Scientology levels a person goes, the more this a factor.  Apparently, there is no amount of Scientology processing that will proof you up against a person who disagrees with or criticizes Scientology.

Let's go over that carefully.  Scientology is, apparently, so weak, that all gains are lost simply because one person has disagreed or criticized the Scientologist, Scientology or Hubbard!  That's what Scientology says.

But wait, there's more!

Again and again, these "appliers of Standard Scientology" justify Scientology's continual failure to produce the stellar results promised on The Scientology Grade Chart by saying, "Well, that wasn't Standard Scientology".  In the entire history of Scientology, there is not one documented case where a true Clear was produced; there is not one documented case where a true OT was produced.

Again and again, the excuse is that it wasn't "Standard Scientology".

Do you see what that means?  Thousands and thousands of people studying Scientology, trying as hard as they can to exactly practice Standard Scientology, for over sixty years, and they couldn't do it.  Apparently, Scientology technology is so sensitive that the slightest variation makes it invalid and it won't produce the promised results.  That is not what you could call a "robust" technology.

No, that's the opposite of robust.  That's a very, very weak technology!

All this is exactly what these Champions of Standard Scientology are saying, but they're not paying attention to what it means.  It means that, deep down, they believe that Scientology technology is incredibly weak.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on October 11, 2010, 10:28:50 PM
           Why Doesn't Scientology Publish Good News About Itself?

Here is a question for Church of Scientology members:  Why doesn't the church publish good news about itself?

If you are a True Believer and a member of the Church of Scientology, you will, of course, believe in the Great Anti-Scientology Conspiracy.  And this Conspiracy explains why everyone else doesn't publish good news about the church...

But why doesn't the Church of Scientology publish its own "Good News" for the world to admire?

You go to David Miscavige's Big Events, and you hear about the church's "solutions" around the world, and you hear about the church's "expansion" and you stand and applaud, but none of these things appear outside of the church.  Not only do major media not report anything and not only are all other news outlets silent about this "news" but the Church of Scientology itself doesn't even report it via press releases.

Now, isn't that odd?

We know the Church of Scientology understands press releases because you will see their press releases appear now and then -- but those only contain anecdotal stories about individual Scientologists' personal opinions and personal experiences.

Never news.  Never facts.  (But you are not supposed to notice that.)

And Scientologists need to be asking why.  Why doesn't the church issue press releases about all its "good news"?  If there is all that good news, why doesn't the church tell the world?

The answer is quite obvious and quite simple.  The Chuch of Scientololgy only issues stories about personal opinions and personal experiences because no one can fact-check those.

The church knows, from past experience, that if they publish any of the claims from Miscavige's Big Events, people around the world will fact-check everything, and every single lie the church tells will be exposed.

What is extremely revealing about all this is this: Knowing that everything they claim will be fact-checked, the Church of Scientology makes no claims at all in any of their press releases.  They know that nothing they claim will withstand careful investigation.

Everything Miscavige claims is a lie.  The proof is in the Church of Scientology's complete silence.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on October 12, 2010, 04:26:38 PM
                 Scientologists: The Disappearing States of Clear and OT

When I was first introduced to Scientology, I was quite enamored with the states of Clear and OT as described and promised by L. Ron Hubbard.

In Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health, in 1950, Hubbard described Clear:

    A clear, for instance, has complete recall of everything which has ever happened to him or anything he has ever studied. He does mental computations, such as those of chess, for example, which a normal would do in a half an hour, in ten or fifteen seconds. He does not think “vocally” but spontaneously. There are no demon circuits in his mind except those which it might amuse him to set up -- and break down again -- to care for various approaches to living. He is entirely self-determined. And his creative imagination is high. He can do a swift study of anything within his intellectual capacity, which is inherent, and the study would be the equivalent to him of a year or two of training when he was “normal.” His vigor, persistence and tenacity to life are very much higher than anyone has thought possible.

    L. Ron Hubbard
    Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health

I also discovered Hubbard's description and promises for OT from his lectures and materials from 1952.  Hubbard said, when a person attained OT:

    * They would be "cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, form and thought".
    * An OT could leave the body at will and go anywhere in the whole universe in an instant. 
    * An OT could view any portion of the time track clearly and precisely. 
    * An OT could easily create and destroy MEST (matter, energy, space and time).

Who wouldn't desire these states?  I wanted the powers and abilities of Clear and OT.

So, I did Scientology, and I became Clear.  And I was quite disappointed that I never gained any of the abilities and powers that I expected.  But I forgot that these had been promised to me by Hubbard.

I continued, and I did OT levels.  Again, I was disappointed.  Where were the powers and abilities that Hubbard had promised?

Weren't all those wonderful things promised to all of us?

Well, no, they aren't.  Not any more.

In Scientology today, those things are not promised any more.  Oh, sure, Scientology wants you to read Dianetics and think that you are getting that kind of Clear -- but that isn't what they promise.  They love for you to listen to Hubbard's lectures about OT from 1952 and think that's what you'll be getting -- but they don't promise anything.

Today, this is what Scientology "promises":

    Clear: a highly desirable state for the individual, achieved through auditing, which was never attainable before Dianetics. A Clear is a person who no longer has his own reactive mind and therefore suffers none of the ill effects that the reactive mind can cause. The Clear has no engrams which, when restimulated, throw out the correctness of his computations by entering hidden and false data.

That is very, very different from what Hubbard promised.  It used to be an amazing state full of abilities and powers far beyond the normal person.  Now it is a vague state, described as "highly desirable" but without any specific reasons why anyone should consider it desirable at all.

Today, a Clear, is just someone who "no longer has his own reactive mind", but that no longer means any specific improvements or abilities.  Nothing is promised and nothing is delivered.

Today, the determination of whether you are Clear or not has nothing to do with abilities or powers, the determination is, if you had the "Clear cognition", you are Clear -- until David Miscavige decides you aren't.

So, between Hubbard's fantastic descriptions and promises of 1950 down to the vapid and meaningless description and promises of today, the State of Clear has become powerless and meaningless.

For OT, it's even more drastic.  Today, the Church of Scientology's description of OT is:

    By “operating” is meant “able to act and handle things.” And by “thetan” is meant the spiritual being that is the basic self. “Theta” is Greek for thought or life or the spirit.

    An Operating Thetan then is one who can handle things without having to use a body or physical means.

    Basically one is oneself, can handle things and exist without physical support and assistance. This state is Operating Thetan, or OT. It doesn't mean one becomes God. It means one becomes wholly oneself.

Very little is said and nothing is actually promised.

The statement "handle things without having to use a body" sounds pretty good, but, well, what "things", and what does "handle" mean?  Is anything specific actually being promised here?  The statement could mean anything and so, ultimately, it means nothing.

And the statement: "One becomes wholly oneself" is devoid of any actual meaning.  With that description, anyone could be "OT" as long as they considered that they were "wholly themselves".

Whatever happened to "cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, form and thought"?  Whatever happened to "going exterior at will"?  Whatever happened to "creating and destroying MEST"?  Whatever happened to OT?

In today's Scientology, there are no promises or expectation of any special abilities or powers from becoming OT.  You finish OT VIII and, "Congratulations, you are OT".

Again, from the fantastic promises and descriptions by Hubbard in the 1950s down to the vapid and meaningless description of today, OT has become nothing much.

While Scientologists may have been lured in by the description of Clear from 1950 and the descriptions of OT from the early days, they have no reason to complain when those states never occur -- because the actual descriptions used today by Scientology for their "advanced states" are empty of all meaning and significance.  Today, nothing is promised and nothing is delivered.

This is why David Miscavige can declare thousands of Clears and OTs "not Clear" and "not OT" and send them all back to redo everything -- there are no criteria to determine or validate these states.  It's completely arbitrary, no one can say otherwise.

This is why there are constant arguments inside and outside of the church about who is and isn't Clear -- there is no way to test it, no way to prove it or disprove it.  You are "Clear" only if some "authority" says you are.

Neither Clear nor OT actually exist as exceptional states, they are just arbitrary labels assigned by some "authority" to indicate you finished some level -- nothing more.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on November 02, 2010, 10:39:56 PM
Saturday, October 30, 2010

          Scientologists: Can You Remove The "Cult" From Scientology?

Scientologists keep insisting, "Scientology is not a cult!"  OK then, if that is so, then removing all the cult characteristics from Scientology should be quite simple and certainly very desirable.  After all, if you believe Scientology is not a cult, then you, of all people, would want to remove all possible doubt by eradicating as many cult characteristics as you can.

Of course, this couldn't be done by the Church of Scientology.  David Miscavige has pushed the church too far into the cult thing to change now, but one would think that the outside Scientologists would want to avoid any and all aspects of cult behavior.

Unless, of course, you think that these cult attributes of Scientology are vital to its basic functionality.  Do you?

No?  Good.  Let's look at how that could be done.

Most cult experts refer to James Lifton's eight criteria as basic indicators of cult behavior. (James Lifton, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China).

Lifton details the following eight characteristics that typify a destructive group environment:

   1. Dictating with whom members can communicate

Boy, Scientology really does this one!  You've got disconnection, "enemies" lists, suppressive declares, "lower conditions", "sources of entheta" and many other ways to interfere with and control Scientologists' communication.  And, yes, this attitude is very much alive in Scientology outside of the church.

Scientology says this kind of super-control is "for your own good".  Oh, really?  In no other endeavor is less information considered good.  The bottom line is that the ostensible leaders of Scientology benefit from this kind of control, not the members.  They don't trust people to get all the information and make up their own minds.  No, they say, you must be "protected" from other viewpoints and other ideas.

No legitimate philosophy, belief or religion requires this kind of super-control.

Get rid of it all: Disconnection, "enemies" lists, suppressive declares, "sources of entheta" and all other methods of restricting and controlling communication.  Scientology is supposed to be all about "communication", so remove all the artificial and cult-like barriers to communication.

   2. Convincing members they are a chosen people with a higher purpose.

The Scientology version of this is: Scientologists are Homo Novis, more advanced, superior beings who are the "only ones" who can save the universe from the "dwindling spiral".  Part of the Scientology doctrine is that "Scientologists are better, more ethical, more causative and more intelligent.  They are the top 1% of the top 1%."

While this may make Scientologists feel puffed up with self-importance, the real reason for this message is that it makes it easier for the leaders to keep asking for more commitment, more money and more effort from their followers without having to explain why or account for any funds.  Scientology's professed leaders can suppress any questions or dissent because of this "higher purpose".

In the real world such statements of superiority are seen, quite correctly, as vain and self-serving.  In the real world, the status of being better can only be bestowed by others in acknowledgement of a person's or group's good work or high quality results or products.

You'd best shut up about how "superior" Scientologists are.  That's obvious cult-talk, guys.  It would be an excellent improvement to Scientology's dogma if that disappeared.

   3. Creating an us-versus-them mentality, whereby everything in the group is right and everything outside is wrong.

This attitude is embodied in the Great Anti-Scientology Conspiracy created by L. Ron Hubbard.  Such a "conspiracy" doesn't exist.  You are not surrounded and opposed by the "Enemy".  You are not engaged in a "Great Battle".  If you keep thinking like that, you will fail -- as Scientology has for so long.  This "conspiracy" exists only to isolate Scientologists from the real world.  It's a cult thing.

Already I see "Independent Scientology" moving in the direction of more and more us-versus-them, more and more isolation and more and more fear of contact with difficult questions, disagreements and other ideas.

You will never be accepted by society at large if you keep looking at society and non-Scientologists as either the enemy or as too stupid or evil to "see the 'truth' of Scientology."  If you stop fighting your imaginary "enemies", you might just find the world is filled with some very good people doing very good things.

Drop the us-versus-them rhetoric and belief -- it really screams "cult!"

   4. Encouraging members to share their innermost secrets and then purge whatever hinders their merging with the group.

In Scientology, whether on course or in session, any Scientologist who "disagrees with Hubbard", "questions Hubbard", "has doubts" or "thinks there is a better way" must be, and is, handled until they give up any disagreements, questions, doubts and such.  Woe betide the student who says, "That doesn't match my experience!"

If the disagreement persists, Scientology's automatic accusation is that it is the Scientologist's "out ethics" (meaning evil acts) that is causing the disagreement.  The Scientologist is required to confess all their transgressions to the "Ethics Officer" or auditor until they abandon their doubts and disagreements and fully agree with Hubbard's words.

The purpose of this is to punish disagreement and doubt.  According to Scientology, the "source" of the disagreement is never Scientology, it is the person's evil intentions.  The purpose of this bit of cult indoctrination is control, not enlightenment.

Why would any legitimate philosophy, belief or religion require such suppression and punishment for disagreement?  This has got to go.

   5. Convincing members that their philosophical belief system is "the absolute truth".

While early Hubbard was known to have admitted his mistakes and the imperfections of Scientology, his later pronouncements have led true believers to assign Scientology technology a status of absolute perfection.  They now believe that every single piece of Scientology is perfect, "works 100% of the time" and solves every single problem known to man.

And the many, many times Scientology has failed?  Well Scientology has a built-in excuse for that: "It was misapplied!"

This cult attribute allows Scientology to continue to fail, when it does, while continuing to claim "absolute perfection".  Followers must continue to believe in Scientology's "perfection" or admit to the crime of "misapplying Scientology".  It's a control thing, not an honesty thing.

The Scientology belief system is not perfect.  There are significant flaws.  All you have to do is take an honest, unbiased look.  Honestly review your own experiences and the results of Scientologists in general.

Be honest, admit the failures of Scientology so that any successes might stand a chance of being believed.  Any truth in Scientology, any good results from Scientology, will be proven in the real world, not in rhetoric.

  6. Creating an "in" language of buzzwords and group speak which becomes a substitute for critical thinking.

You may have noticed that, from the cult attributes list so far, one of the overreaching themes of cults is isolation.  Scientology's insistence on its own very unique terminology, and its insistence that these strange terms have nothing to do with concepts from other philosophies and religions, works very well to isolate Scientologists' thinking and concepts.

This is not for the benefit of members of Scientology.  In truth, Scientology's terminology does have parallels to concepts from other philosophies and religions.  A minor amount of thought and study proves this to be true.  The more Scientology allows parallels to be drawn and the less Scientology insists on only using its very unique terminology, the better Scientologists will get along with the rest of the world and the better Scientologists will understand universal spiritual concepts.

Scientology must change to take advantage of all the richness there is in the world.  Get rid of this cult isolation technique.

   7. Reinterpreting human experience and emotion in terms of the group's doctrine.

Scientology does this in how it describes the mind.  Scientology's "Reactive Mind" is, they say, the cause of all sickness, upset, problems and failures.   Further, all difficulties that a person might have, every single one, has its cause in something Hubbard has described and is solved by something Scientology sells.

If a Scientologist feels good or succeeds at something, it is only "because of Scientology".  If a Scientologist feels bad or fails, it is only because they "misapplied or failed to apply Scientology".

Nothing in this universe exists in isolation.  To believe, as Scientologists now do, that all good things are due exclusively to Scientology, is ludicrous and very, very cult-like.  Likewise, to believe that all bad emotions or failures are due only to a "failure to apply Scientology" is preposterous, extremely simplistic and, again, a cult thing.

What must be ignored by all Scientologists is that many in world outside of Scientology are happy and living quite well without Scientology.  Quite a few are even doing much better than your average Scientologist.

To take all the complexities of life, all the factors, all the conditions and to reduce it down to just one cause and only one solution is neither logical nor sane.  Cults are like that.  Get rid of this cult attribute.

   8. Reinforcing the idea that life within the group is good and worthy, and life outside evil and pointless.

Scientology teaches that the only good being done in the world is being done by Scientology.  Scientology teaches that the only worthwhile activities and goals are Scientology's activities and goals.  Scientology teaches that all other solutions in the world are worthless and pointless because Scientology has the solutions to everything.

Scientology teaches that life within Scientology is full of happiness and success, but life outside of Scientology is doomed to failure.

As with most of these attributes of a cult, this is designed to isolate members from the rest of the world.  If the rest of the world is grey, pointless and doomed, why have anything to do with it?

Since the rest of the world is not grey, pointless or doomed, and is, in fact, filled with many good people doing many good things, the only purpose of this cult attribute is to further isolate the Scientologist to make them easier to control.

Get rid of this bit of indoctrination, it doesn't benefit Scientologists, only their purported leaders.

    * Summary.

Dear Scientologist, if you are like I was when I was first looking beyond Scientology, you will be shocked and alarmed by the fact that Scientology exhibits all the attributes of a cult.  This cannot be acceptable to you.

This subject is very important to any Scientologist who wants Scientology to go forward into society.  Cults cannot do that.  You may insist that Scientology is not a cult, but unless you remove all the cult attributes from Scientology, it really doesn't matter what you believe.  In the real world, if it talks like a cult, acts like a cult and controls its members like a cult -- it is a cult.

Can you remove the "cult" from Scientology?  In truth, I'm betting Scientologists won't even try, especially those who aspire to leadership in the "new" Scientology.

The benefits of Scientology retaining all its cult characteristics are to the leaders of the cult, not to its members.  When the supposed leaders of "new" Scientology vehemently support the retention of all these cult attributes, be aware of why they do so.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on November 08, 2010, 06:41:25 AM
Sunday, October 31, 2010
                             Scientology And The Wrong "Why"
In a comment on my  Scientologists: Can You Remove The "Cult" From Scientology? article, one commenter reminded me of one of Outside Scientology's major mistakes.  In my experience, all the True Believers who have left the Church of Scientology make this same mistake.

The commenter, Vertley, stated:

    Seems that practically everyone makes the same mistake when calling Scientology a cult.

    Below is the "admin why" and a more correct statement. When broadly grasped, this then will open the door for the necessary handlings.

    "The Sea Organization: The current senior management group of the "church" lead by David Miscavige, is a rogue cult within Scientology. In every sense of the word and by any definition this group is a CULT. Public Scientologists and Staff Members not in the Sea Organization, are sort of "collateral damage" victims of the activities of this toxic cult group within Scientology and therefore exhibit cult symptoms even though they would argue vociferously to deny such." Vertley

    From the "The "WHY" For Scientology" article/project.

(To non-Scientologists:  This use of "why" as a noun is from L. Ron Hubbard's Data Evaluator's Series and is basically defined as the true reason a "non-optimum" situation came to be.  Part of the definition is that the "right Why" opens the door to a handling that reverts the non-optimum situation.)

Let me rephrase this as it appears in many of the Independent Scientology sites so it is clear what "non-optimum" situation we are talking about and what they claim is the source of all their problems:

    The Church of Scientology is guilty of tremendous abuses, crimes, fraud and lies -- but all of it is because of, and only because of David Miscavige.

It must be noted that the "Why" espoused in Vertley's comment is not a good example of a "right Why".  It's merely a description of the the existing scene, not the cause of it.

Going to Vertley's website to investigate, I find that he has a "Who".  To no one's surprise, Vertley has decided that the "Who" is "David Miscavige".  I'm sure he started his "analysis" with that "finding" already decided upon.

As with almost all Outside Scientologists, he has the wrong "Who" and the wrong "Why".

Certainly, David Miscavige is a primary player in this drama, but Vertley, and other outside Scientologists aren't even asking the right questions.

Consider what "handling" Vertley's "Who" and "Why" leads to: "Remove David Miscavige from the organization".

Yup, that's it.

Now, you need to understand that David Miscavige has set things up, legally and organizationally, so that he cannot, ever be removed.  Get it?  Pretty much every Independent Scientology analysis comes up with David Miscavige as the "Who" and "Remove David Miscavige" as the "handling".  Just a little hint: An analysis with a "Who" you cannot touch and a "Handling" you cannot implement is, by definition, totally wrong.

Wrong "Who".  Wrong "Why".

No, this "Why" is a justification for all the things that have gone so very, very wrong in Scientology -- both inside and outside of the church.  This bogus "Why" is Scientologists' excuse as to why it isn't their fault.

Let's see how the data analysis could have gone a bit deeper:

    * The situation is that David Miscavige is abusive, destructive and has been destroying the Church of Scientology.
    * The earlier problem was that Miscavige was allowed to do it.  He was allowed to take over the church.  His sociopathic behavior was not a secret.  It was well demonstrated before he came to power.
    * Miscavige destroyed L. Ron Hubbard's tech and Scientologists not only let him do it, they applauded him for doing so! Thousands of people worked to help Miscavige do it.
    * Miscavige had and has no qualifications to lead Scientology, no training and no experience, yet no one stopped him.  Many Scientologists followed him and helped him.
    * Miscavige was abusive from the start and none of the senior Scientologists stopped him.  In over thirty years, no Scientologist stopped him or stopped his abuses.  Many Scientologists started emulating the abusive Misavige.
    * Only a few Scientologists stood up to him and they were destroyed -- and other Scientologists helped Miscavige destroy them.

The "Why" is not that "David Miscavige came to power" or any other equally careless, cursory "reason why".

Scientologists, you have to look deeper and look honestly or this "non-optimum situation" will come back again and again. Since you haven't figured out the real reason David Miscavige came to power nor the real reason no one stopped him in over thirty years, you have no way to stop the next sociopath -- or the next, or the next one after that.  I'm talking about Scientology, inside or outside of the church.

As I said before, David Miscavige is a symptom of what is wrong in Scientology, not the cause of it.

Wrong "Who". Wrong "Why".

Here is a question that you need to investigate and answer honestly: "What, in Scientology, allowed a sociopath to gain power unopposed?"  It was way too easy for him.

Here is another: "Why were and are Scientologists so lacking in responsibility?"  They didn't take responsibility earlier and they uniformly refuse to take responsibility now.  The new motto for Scientology should be "It's not my fault!"

You start talking about the problems of Scientology and Scientologists will unanimously point all their fingers at David Miscavige.  We're supposed to ignore all their actions and inactions for the last thirty years and just focus on Miscavige.  Wrong!  He is only one man.  He needed a lot of people to follow him and a lot more to say nothing.

Which were you, dear Scientologist?  Were you the one who applauded while your church was destroyed?  Were you one of those who disconnected from your parents, your friends, your children?  Did you help the church destroy innocent people?  Or did you just turn away, hoping "things would get better" and didn't say anything?

Were you the coward, or the enabler?  How many of your principles did you fail to uphold?  When did you decide it was too hard to be honest and decent?  How did you help in the destruction of Scientology and your fellow Scientologists?

Don't look too far for the "Who" in all this.  Some day you might grow enough to take responsibility for what you have done, what all us Scientologists have done.

I don't care much about the Church of Scientology, but what is important is all the people who have been harmed and destroyed -- with your assistance, or at least your tacit approval.

Now, do you think you can find the right "Why"?  One that doesn't involve blaming David Miscavige for everything?

I doubt you can do it.  Judging by the last thirty years, you have neither the courage, the honesty nor the decency to do it.  As long as you keep insisting on the wrong "Who" and the wrong "Why" -- excuses for why you're not responsible -- you will never be able to stop the inevitable destruction of Scientology.

The ball is, as it always has been, in your court.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on November 08, 2010, 06:43:00 AM
Thursday, November 4, 2010
                  Scientology and the Wrong "Why" Part 2

We have a wonderful opportunity to actually test our various hypotheses, which we discussed on Scientology and the Wrong "Why".

With the "Independent Scientology" movement getting themselves all organized and sorting out who are real Scientologists and who aren't, we have an actual, real life test bed for "pure" Scientology and dedicated True Believers.

This will answer the question, quite conclusively, "Is it David Miscavige? Was it a one-time fluke?  Or are the problems displayed by the Church of Scientology actually built into Scientology itself?"

Now, most of us figure we already know the answer to those questions, but it is quite fascinating to see this play out in the real world with real True Believers trying to make it all work.

And, yes, they are doing a bang-up job aren't they?

No, they haven't actually made it to full cult status, but they are making progress.

If you check out their various communications, you will see some very strong indicators of where they are heading.   Disagreements are not tolerated.  If you want to be considered a group member in good standing, you cannot criticize L. Ron Hubbard in any way or find any fault with any bit of Scientology.

The word "hater" is now being used to describe anyone who offers an unacceptable opinion.  And people are being banned for such crimes.

The "Independents" are noting their "enemies" -- those who disagree with them.  Good, upstanding members of the "Independents" must not associate with those "enemies".

There are more and more such indications happening, feel free to add your own observations in the comments.

The "Independent" movement is quite small and it will never grow much, so nothing big will ever happen.  However, it is a fascinating look at how True Believers will implement "pure" Scientology -- even though they have such a clear and immediate example of what will happen if they do not recognize, admit and fix the problems of Scientology.

Scientology is, intrinsically, a cult.  It cannot exist in its "pure" form in a free and open society.  Freedom of speech, freedom of opinion and freedom of thought cannot be tolerated.  Disagreement, dissent, creative ideas, investigation, testing, questions, proof, doubts -- none of that can coexist with "pure" Scientology.

And, because of that, the "Independent Scientology" movement must, inevitably, withdraw from free society and protect itself in its little cave-of-enforced-agreement.

And so we get to watch this drama unfold.  Will this descent into cult-hood continue?  Will some of the members of this "Independent" movement see it and try to stop the descent?  If they try, will anything good happen, or will they just be banned for their "suppressive acts"?  How far will this go before it implodes?

Here is a wonderful example of how "pure" Scientology, applied carefully and rigorously by True Believers, affects an organization -- played out in real time in front of us all.

Who's got the popcorn?

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on November 25, 2010, 10:27:12 AM
Tuesday, November 16, 2010

                                     Hiding Scientology

While watching the comments of Marty's group, which has declared itself the "Independent Scientology Group", I have been waiting for them to, well, implement Scientology.

I think it's great they are auditing each other and do Scientology training.  Really.  If someone wants Scientology auditing or training, and someone else provides that, well that's the way it should be.  If no one is harmed, it's nobody's business but theirs.

But what about the other Scientology technologies?  You know, the abusive stuff -- all those "enemy" lists, "Suppressive Person" declares, disconnection orders, "PTS" declares, punishments, lower conditions and all that stuff.

After all, these are key parts of L. Ron Hubbard's technology, Hubbard said so.

Is Hubbard's all-important Ethics Tech not being applied by this group?  Did they realize these were primary policies for abuse?  Are they altering Scientology to make it "kinder and gentler"?

Ah, not so much.  Nothing of Hubbard's can be neglected or modified, that's the rules.

However, they do realize it would look bad if they started declaring people suppressive or PTS, so, like Hubbard banning the words "fair game" while at the same time urging its use, so this "Independent Scientology Group" simply doesn't use those words.

The people they have determined to be "suppressives"?  Apparently, they use the label "haters".  Suppressive groups are, therefore, called "hater sites" or "hater blogs".

Gee, isn't this the same code word, and the exact same meaning that the Church of Scientology uses for "suppressives" when they try to hide Scientology's abuse from "wogs" (non-Scientologists)?  Why, yes it is!

If you've been labelled a "hater" by this group, congratulations!  Apparently, you've been declared a suppressive.  No "Independent Scientology Group" member may talk with you.  They are supposed to disconnect from you.

And how about declaring people "PTS" (Potential Trouble Source -- someone "connected to a suppressive")?  Are they implementing that bit of "tech"?

Yes, indeed.  Look at how, and at whom, they direct the word "natterer".   It's a code word for "has overts" (has done "bad" things), and for "PTS".

So you have "natterers" and "natter boards" to indicate those who might still be Scientologists, but who are not considered "pure".  You see, these "natterers" have been corrupted by the "haters" to say bad things about Hubbard and/or Scientology.

Good Scientologists will not associate or communicate to these PTS people or groups, but there is still hope that, if the "natterers" disconnect from the "haters", they might still be recovered to "pure" Scientology.

And so it starts: the suppression of divergent thinking; the suppression of any "negative" information; the suppression of any disagreement, discussion, debate, questions or doubts.  These are key policies for creating and enforcing cult-thought-control.  No group attempting to implement all of Scientology would ever neglect these vital thought control policies.

But they hide it because, in Scientology, if something you do is considered unacceptable by society, you just change its name and continue doing it.  (Apparently, they think "wogs" are too stupid to figure that out.)

Now don't get me wrong.  Scientologists do have the right to say what they want, make "enemies" lists and declare people "haters" and "natterers".  That is covered under freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

But I sincerely doubt that many Scientologists, escaping from the abuses and cult-thought-control of the Church of Scientology, are looking for someone else to control them.

This group is selling a straitjacket for the mind -- but freedom to think, freedom to look and freedom to disagree is just too precious for any intelligent person to buy that "tech".

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on November 25, 2010, 10:33:45 AM
Saturday, November 20, 2010

                             Why Scientology Isn't a Future Danger

"Scientology" as practiced within the Church of Scientology is 100% pure cult-control. This "church" is a greedy, dishonest, fraudulent and criminal organization.  However, it is no longer dangerous in a broad sense because it is extremely small and currently in the last throes of collapsing.  It has no future and its danger is primarily to those still trapped inside the cult.

But what about Scientology outside of and disassociated from the Church of Scientology?

Anyone who has read this blog knows I am not an apologist for Scientology and its cultish thought-control, but I do contend that it isn't, and will never again be, as dangerous as some people seem to think it is or could be.

Now, it is true that L. Ron Hubbard created and institutionalized the abuses of the Church of Scientology -- things like the RPF, disconnection, fair game, "enemy" lists and declares and all such abuses.  These abuses are built into the core of Scientology.  Couldn't that happen again?

Certainly, but I believe that any attempt to implement such abuses outside of the church would result in the automatic destruction of any group that attempted it.

You see, the huge difference between Scientology within the Church of Scientology, and Scientology outside of the church is summed up in one word, "monopoly".  The Church of Scientology contends that it and it alone is the proper and only purveyor of "Standard Scientology".  According to the church, there is no "real Scientology" available outside of the church.  If you are expelled from the church, you are doomed -- any "Scientology" you might get outside of the church is so terribly flawed that it would destroy you.

And so, according to the church, you must remain in the church and you must toe the line and you must do everything they tell you to do or you will be condemned to destruction forever.

And this dogma keeps the True Believers trapped inside the church's draconian control.  Or, at least, it used to.

But now, more and more Scientologists are leaving the Church of Scientology and, if they still believe, they are finding Scientology practitioners outside who also claim to deliver "Standard Scientology".  Suddenly, Scientology is available from hundreds (maybe even thousands) of groups and individuals.  Once someone has left the church, they understand that there is no such monopoly.

And this is why outside Scientology cannot institute the exact same abuses as the church.

Imagine some True Believer, part of some independent Scientology Group A, runs afoul with Group A's leader and "gets declared".  Well, so what?  He or she just goes somewhere else.  If Scientology Group A becomes known for their abuse, they will cease to exist.  If Scientology Group A becomes greedy, they won't get any business.

You will, inevitably, see the following comedy played out in the independent Scientology field: "You're a suppressive! You're declared!", "No, you're the suppressive, you're declared!", "No, you are!", "No, you are!".  Any attempts by one group to implement the abusive parts of Scientology will just become comedy.

In addition, without the million-dollar lawyers of the church, any Scientology group will be held responsible for any and all abuse, fraud and criminal behavior.  These parts of Hubbard's technology cannot be implemented if the group wants to survive.  Any attempt to implement Hubbard's more abusive practices will only lose them customers and, possibly, get them into legal trouble.

One of the most powerful tools against Scientology's abuses is all of you on the Internet.  With all of Scientology's "secrets" and all of Scientology's abuses and failures exposed for all to see, any Scientology group is going to be hard-pressed to sell its "solutions" and its "miraculous results".  The watchful eye of the Internet is not going to go away.

But there's even more.  Outside Scientology is not just in competition with other Scientology practitioners -- it is in competition with every other self-help group, every other philosophy, every motivational speaker, every religion -- in short, they are in competition with every other person and group that claims to make you feel better and improve your life.

And, unlike Scientology, some of those other improvement techniques can actually prove their claims.  This is a completely different world from Scientology's "monopoly" of the past.

I'm not saying those practicing Scientology understand this, I don't think they do.  From what I see, they are still attempting to impose the same cult-thought-control on their membership.  While they don't have the power to impose disconnection, they are still designating a lot of people and many websites as "unacceptable to associate with".  They show signs of withdrawing into private, carefully censored, forums where any dissent is quickly shouted down and quashed.

But, without the monopoly, this kind of cult behavior will only repel potential new members and eventually disgust any intelligent, current members.  Scientologists escaping from the Church of Scientology, and seeing just more of the same abuse and attempted thought control occurring in the "Independent" movement will, for the most part, stay far, far away.

No, any group "promising" Scientology's false claims and exhibiting cult behavior simply cannot expand.  If they are any danger at all, it will only be to their small (and inevitably shrinking) group of "faithful followers".

Scientology's fangs have been drawn.  If it wants to continue at all, it will have to become open and honest.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on January 08, 2011, 12:18:10 PM
Saturday, January 1, 2011

                           Scientology New Years Event 2011

I know I promised some predictions, but this comment was just dropped into one of my Ask a Question threads, and I felt compelled to discuss it, and perhaps generate some fact checking.

    We just heard about some of the announcements made at the latest Cof$ New Year's event. Here are some of the highlights:

        * The Australian government is now funding WISE courses for anyone who wants to take them in that country.
        * Superpower Bldg will be completed and superpower processes will start being delivered this year (2011).
        * The statistics at various Ideal Orgs around the world are higher than stats at those orgs for the last ten to fifteen years combined.

    I'm particularly interested in the claims about the Australian government funding WISE courses. If this is not an outright lie, there should be some documentation available.

    Did anyone on this blog attend the event?

    Are there any Aussies here who have info about the WISE courses being funded by the government?

Interesting.  I don't know if this description is accurate or complete, but the claims David Miscavige made are, as usual, hard to believe.  Hopefully more information will be forthcoming.

First, Miscavige claims that the "Australian government" is funding WISE courses.  Would that be the national government, a state government or what?  If true, this would need to be corrected.  Which agency?  Why does that agency think WISE courses have any value at all?  If this is true, the people of Australia need to raise the alarm that:

    * A government agency is funding a "technology" that does not work, and may actually cause harm.
    * The agency is funding a group that operates as a recruiting front group for the Church of Scientology.
    * A significant part of all funds to WISE goes directly to the Church of Scientology.

If true, we thank Miscavige for bringing this transgression to the attention of the Australian people.

As for the second claim, I actually believe that Miscavige will order the completion of the Super Power building.  He has scammed over three times the money needed from Scientologists over the years -- hundreds of millions of dollars.  Money was never the problem.

The problem was that some of the "Super Power Rundowns" are actually impossible to deliver.  Some of the "rundowns" involved equipment and/or procedures that would never be approved by state and city regulators.  Other "rundowns" would be completely unacceptable to the public -- like running around a pole all day, week after week.

This claim by Miscavige that he will start "delivering Super Power" simply means that many of L. Ron Hubbard's original "Super Power Rundowns" have been drastically altered or removed completely, never to be delivered.  I was waiting for this to happen.  Miscavige has no problem altering Hubbard's tech -- and removing large chunks of it.  It was only a matter of time before he realized that was the solution to his Super Power problem -- just alter or delete large parts of it.

The fact that it no longer bears much resemblence to the original Super Power Rundowns by Hubbard won't bother Miscavige at all.

The third claim, that "statistics at various Ideal Orgs around the world are higher than stats at those orgs for the last ten to fifteen years combined" is classic David Miscavige misdirection and half-truths.

Here is the translated version: "Some [very carefully selected and meaningless] statistics at [some carefully selected] Ideal Orgs are higher than stats [not necessarily the same stats] at those orgs for the last ten to fifteen years  [a time period which was selected because those carefully selected stats were lower then] combined.

One of the hardest tasks in all of Miscavige Event preparation is finding some statistic and some time period which could be manipulated, redefined and modified so that the stat looks like it went up.

The truth is that all the other, real statistics from those Ideal Orgs have crashed.  That's why they weren't mentioned.  The truth is that all the Ideal Orgs are struggling and failing, as are all the rest of the orgs.  The truth is that all the Church of Scientology statistics, world wide, have crashed and have stayed crashed.

This is why Miscavige no longer displays his "exploding statistics".

Another Big Bogus Event, now with extra lies!

I appreciate the leaked information from the New Year's Event.  If anyone can provide more information, I'll update this post.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on January 16, 2011, 07:09:50 AM

                        Where Are All the Scientologists? Part 4

We are now past the time when estimating the number of Church of Scientology members was even possible.  The reason for this is that the number of church members for a country simply becomes lost in the margin of error of any poll.  The last ARIS survey simply dumped "Scientology" into "Miscellaneous", with numbers too small to note.  Of course, the numbers would be much worse today.

In addition, it looks like the number of people outside of the church, who might still consider themselves a "Scientologist" (and answer a poll that way) is already larger than the number of people in the Church of Scientology.  Unless a poll specifically asked "inside or outside the church," the numbers would be meaningless.

Another problem in determining who really is a member of the Church of Scientology is that most people who no longer want to have anything to do with the church will pretend they still believe -- so they can talk to their friends and family who are church members.

For clarification, here are the different stages most Scientologists go through when waking up and leaving Scientology:

   1. Scientologist finally admits that the actions of the church towards himself and others are abusive and wrong.  I say "finally admits" because almost all Scientologists already feel the church's actions are wrong, but they just don't admit it at first.
      This results in the Scientologist withdrawing support from the church while pretending they're still loyal.  This means they might still show up for the major events and may still take a course or buy a book, but that's about it.
   2. Next, the Scientologist starts talking with other Scientologists about the problems and abuses they see.  As they learn to trust each other, they share their own stories of abuse and wrongdoing by the church.  At this point they eagerly pass along reports from outside the church, like the ones from Luis Garcia and Geir Isene.
      This results in a fifth column inside of the Church of Scientology.  These Scientologists actually become a conduit from outside Scientology whistle-blowers right into the very heart of the Church of Scientology.  This completely destroys the carefully constructed wall between the church and the real world.  This development is significant.
   3. Then these Scientologists start to read the Internet -- the "forbidden" sites!  Initially, this can be very scary, since they have been assured that all sorts of terrible things will happen to them when they read these sites.  But they do and they are shocked and outraged at what they find about David Miscavige, Scientology and their church.
      This is the point where most stop having anything to do with the Church of Scientology.
   4. Sooner or later they stop pretending they are still loyal to the Church of Scientology.  From there, they may participate in some independent Scientology group, or may cease to have anything to do with Scientology at all.  The latter is most common.

In the past, we have all wondered how to reach and talk to the very loyal, very dedicated believers at the core of Scientology.  The dogma of Scientology has made them virtually impossible to contact in any practical way.

The Scientologists at stage 2 and 3 are the way this inner core can and has been reached.  Reports from outside whistle-blowers like the reports from Luis Garcia and Geir Isene are written by Scientologists for Scientologists.  They speak the language and they frame the crimes and abuse against the "Ideal Scene" that all Scientologists believe in.  Some of these reports are from well-known and trusted Scientologists.

The previously impermeable bubble that protected members of the Church of Scientology from reality has been torn apart.  The crimes and abuses of David Miscavige and other top Scientologists are now known about and discussed widely within the church.  I'm sure the inner core of the most loyal Scientologists are fervently denying these reports, but they know about them.  This shakes them up.

And here David Miscavige comes to help the inner core make up their minds -- and not in the direction he intends.  He is attacking them.

As more and more Scientologists leave, the few remaining, very loyal Scientologists will come under increasing threats and increasing pressure.  Where there used to be thousands of Scientologists buying books and courses and donating to Miscavige's latest money-making scam, now there are just a few -- and Miscavige expects them to take up the slack -- and his pressure on them is beyond intense.

In addition, because Miscavige has gotten the idea that the truth is getting through to his followers, he is suspicious of every Scientologist and he will demand more Conditions, more Ethics and more Sec Checks.

Get the picture?  The increasing pressure, suspicion, Ethics, greed and threats will now hit at the most loyal, most dedicated Scientologists.  Miscavige can't help it, he must demand more and more money while treating people with more and more suspicion.

And his most loyal, dedicated followers, who have now heard of, and dismissed, stories of crimes and abuse will get the full brunt of Miscavige's greed.  They will get abused.  Criminal acts will occur -- illegal charges on their credit cards, for instance.

That inner, unreachable core of dedicated church members is under attack -- by Miscavige -- and now they will get the truth, whether they want it or not.

We are in the final days, but what is going on will be mostly hidden.  We will only hear about it later.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on February 02, 2011, 07:29:44 AM
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
                                            Predictions 2011
I really should finish up my predictions before January comes to an end. 

What does David Miscavige predict?  Well, several years ago, he promised, to wild applause, that he would "open 70 new Ideal Orgs" that year.  That didn't happen.  It would have required Miscavige to open up "his" church accounts and pay for it -- everyone knows that wouldn't happen.

Last year, as I recall, he promised to open up an Advanced Org/Saint Hill organization on "every continent".  Tumultuous applause.  Didn't happen.  Not even one new AOSH was established.  Again, it's "his" money and he doesn't want to let it go.

For years Miscavige has been promising that this year they will "eradicate psychiatry" from this planet.  And every single year, nothing happens.

And, this year, Miscavige, once again, is promising he will "complete the Super Power building and start delivering Super Power".

So I'll start with the easy predictions:

    * Still no 70 Ideal Orgs created,
    * Still no new AOSH orgs created on "every continent",
    * Still no effect on psychiatry, and
    * Still no Super Power.

I found out that the official version of the Super Power building "promise", apparently, is that they will start on the Super Power building this year.  Huh? For some of you, this may seem a bit of a WTF.  What is that big, ugly building across the street from the Fort Harrison if it isn't the Super Power building?

That building is actually known as the "Flag Annex" by insiders.  The Super Power section of the building hasn't been built.  Rumor has it that the design for the Super Power part of the building has been "settled", but I doubt it.

However, the most important part of that huge, ugly building is not the Flag Annex part, nor is it the Super Power part.  No, the most important part of that building is David Miscavige's Office.  This started out as part of one of that building's massive floors, then half, and it now takes up almost an entire floor all by itself.  This is one of the main reasons it has taken so long -- designing the largest, most luxurious, most secure single-person office this world has ever seen takes a long time!  Every few weeks, Miscavige rips up the plans for his office and demands a redesign.

It will never get built.  The Super Power building will never get opened -- not the Flag Annex part, not the Super Power part and definitely not Miscavige's office.

Some more obvious predictions:

    * Even more major media exposés of the church's lies, crimes and abuses,
    * More Miscavige insanity and abuse,
    * More government investigations,
    * More Scientologists leaving, and
    * More Scientology celebrities leaving.  It will be fun to watch.

Everyone is wondering when certain mega-celebrities will officially leave.  We've seen Tom Cruise emphatically disassociating himself from the Church of Scientology, but when will he repair the damage by publicly quitting?

    * Miscavige will continue to personally direct the church's "counter-attacks", which will fail miserably and will, instead, make the Church of Scientology look even worse,
    * At which point Miscavige will declare "victory", again.
    * David Miscavige will continue to live the lifestyle of a billionaire, while bankrupting and destroying the lives of the very few Scientologists left in the church.

Local churches will continue to close but, of course, secretly.  Miscavige must keep the façade up.  Since Miscavige has already "consolidated" all the orgs that were close to each other, he will have to find more creative ways to hide his org closings.

You might not know this but each Scientology org can be considered to be two orgs.  One, called "Day", operates Monday through Friday during the day.  The other, called "Foundation", operates evenings and weekends.  These two orgs obviously use the same building but operate separately, with separate staff and separate "stats".

I expect many small orgs are already operating in Foundation-only mode.  All they need is one person to cover reception and the book store to give the appearance of still being open during Day hours.  I expect more and more orgs to go into this form of Foundation-only mode.

I also predict that more local orgs will sell their new, empty "Ideal Org" buildings once they realize they can't afford it.  This will always be justified as "it didn't meet our needs", as Portland Org did recently.  I expect orgs to "expand" into cheaper quarters -- while touting that as an "Ideal Org" move.

More and more orgs will have notices taped to their doors about unpaid utilities and unpaid rent but, since no one goes there any more, few will notice.

However, the main drama will center on the Independent Scientology movement. Tons of drama, but nothing much actually happening.  Newly-out Scientologists may land there, temporarily, with more news of abuse and crimes so it's worth monitoring.

As long as the outside Scientology practitioners don't implement the abusive and fraudulent parts of Scientology, and if they can stop lying about their results -- we wish them well.

So those are my predictions for 2011.  The Church of Scientology will continue to collapse.  Miscavige will cover it up, and continue to make his stupid mistakes.

But, for the most part, the collapse of the Church of Scientology will be boring.  Sorry about that.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: The_Fixer on February 19, 2011, 07:40:52 AM
Tom Cruise is disassociating himself from the Co$?
I thought he was still right up in there according to various media reports.
Or have I missed something?
Could you please enlighten me as to what you have heard?

I know John Travolta was having serious doubts about his faith (!pah!) when his son died. The powers that be went into damage control hyperdrive then. They couldn't afford to lose their most valued asset.

I wonder what would have happened if they had assigned him a lower condition and maybe a stretch on the RPF or something similar.

He seems to be one of the most decent and stable people in the movement as far as I know. But then again, I don't don't know him and he is not a staffer or in the SO adding the dangerous crap into the mix.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on February 19, 2011, 09:08:42 AM
As for Tom Cruise.

He has ceased to promote Scientology during interviews.

He said he realized it was a mistake to promote his "faith", while he was
supposed to be promoting his latest movie.

I can`t recall where I read that.
But the evidence is clear. If you follow his promotion of "Day and Knight" it
was bereft of cult talk.

As for Travolta.  He is a hypocrite. He has a life style which the cult describes as out ethics and abberated. According to the cult he promotes, his sexuality is something to be cured. Certainly by the time one has achieved the state of Clear.

I know for a fact that when I was in the Sea Org, OT`s who still reverted to their
alternative lifestyle were made to sign bonds where they would forfeit $10,000
if they did it again.

A great little money earner for them.

Travolta is like any other Scientologist. They will turn their own child in if they
ever speak any critical thoughts about Scio or its leaders.

And the RPF is for Sea org members only.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: The_Fixer on February 19, 2011, 12:39:59 PM
I have heard that remark made by Tom on a TV show somewhere as well. My guess is that the Hollywood powers have told him to pull his head in or he would be dropped.
His erratic behaviour would surely have been affecting his bankability in the industry. If he gets too weird I guess other authorities would be wanting to perform unwelcome investigations of him as well.

That's an interesting comment about John there. I haven't heard much about his private stuff for many years, certainly nothing of what you've said here. But I didn't know him either.

I'll get my popcorn, would love to hear more......

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on March 18, 2011, 08:53:14 AM
Friday, March 11, 2011

              How LRH Destroys Scientologists' Ability to Think

It becomes obvious, while watching Scientologists* try to "think" their way through all their problems, that Scientologists, as a group, have completely lost their ability to think logically and rationally.

Now, I don't want anyone to construe this as a broad insult of Scientologists' intelligence.  This has nothing to do with intelligence, it has everything to do with Scientology indoctrination.  Certainly it makes Scientologists look stupid, but they all recover their original, higher intelligence when they free themselves of Scientology's thought-control.

While we have discussed Scientologists' inability to think logically before, we have never specifically addressed how they lost this important ability.

It is obvious, from the fact that this failing is universal to all Scientologists, that this destruction of the ability to think is built into Scientology.

I think you'll find that Hubbard intentionally created this nightmare.  Let's see how he did it.

1. Hubbard Study Technology

This "technology" is key to destroying a person's ability to think logically and rationally.  Every Scientologist is carefully indoctrinated into this method as the only way to study Scientology.

One of the fundamental assumptions in Hubbard's Study Technology is that the source material is always assumed to be completely and unquestionably correct in every detail.  This flows from Scientology's basic premise that L. Ron Hubbard is always correct.

Therefore, any and all difficulties, confusions and doubts that Scientologists might have are their fault.  The defect is always with the student.

So, when Hubbard's assertions don't match the reality that the student knows, the only solution allowed in Hubbard's Study Tech is for the student to modify their thinking so that they can "make Hubbard's words 'true for them'."

This aligns perfectly with Hubbard's statement that "what is true is what you, yourself, have found true."  This is also called, in Scientology, "making the data your own".

Scientologists cannot use logic or scientific method or rational thinking to do this.  Technically, logic, scientific method and rationality have proven most of Hubbard's assertions to be false.

Instead, Scientologists must alter the way they think, so that they can make whatever Hubbard says "true".  They are actually learning a whole new way of thinking that doesn't use logic, but uses belief, "postulates" and quite a number of logic fallacies.  "Your" opinion must always match what Hubbard said or someone will quote Hubbard to "prove you wrong".  Eventually, Scientologists' "thinking" is reduced to just quoting Hubbard [Leaving Scientology].

After a Scientologist has completed a few Scientology courses, they will have mastered how to do this.  This is not thinking in any normal sense of the word.

2. Redefinition of "true" and "false"

As part of his Scientology ideology, Hubbard coined two new, very unique words:

        The word "theta", in the context of information, means positive information about Scientology, Dianetics and Hubbard.  More exactly, it means any information that aligns with Scientology's viewpoint.  For example, negative information about psychiatry would be considered theta by a Scientologist.
        The word "entheta" means negative information about Scientology, Dianetics and Hubbard.  Specifically, it means any and all information that contradicts, disproves or disagrees with Hubbard's statements or Scientology's viewpoint.

Note very carefully that this is completely unrelated to whether a particular "fact" is true or false.  If a "fact" aligns with Hubbard's statements, it is theta, even if false.  If a fact contradicts something Hubbard said, it is entheta, even if true.

However, Hubbard and all Scientologists use theta as if it meant "true" and use entheta as if it meant "false".  To Scientologists, "theta" equals "true" and "entheta" equals "false".  They will say things like, "Oh you can't believe that, that's entheta!"

It becomes impossible to think if you don't know what is really true and what is really false.

3. Censoring "other" information

Further, Hubbard expressly forbade all Scientologists from viewing, reading or listening to anything labeled entheta.  It would "enturbulate" them, he claimed, and interfere with their "gains".  There are penalties for Scientologists who access entheta information.

Now to make sure you understand exactly what this means, let me use non-Scientology words.  Scientologists are expressly forbidden from accessing, in any way, information that contradicts anything Hubbard or Scientology says.

How can anyone think logically and rationally about a subject when they are forbidden from seeing or even knowing any differing information?

4. Asking for proof is outlawed

The first thing any normal person would do, when presented with fantastic claims about some subject is to ask for proof.  "Show me the data!"  "Do you have pictures?"  "Can I talk to them?"  "Let's go look!"

This is normal.  This is healthy.  This is good, logical thinking.

Well, Hubbard condemned it.  Demanding proof was bad, it was "suppressive".  He devoted one entire lecture (Flows: Basic Agreement and Prove It!) where he ranted on and on about how horrible it was to demand proof of anything.

In Scientology, asking for proof of anything Hubbard said or anything the church claims is a punishable act.  If you insist on seeing proof, you are a suppressive person!

And, with that, Hubbard yanked one of the most fundamental principles of scientific thought right out of Scientologists' minds.

In Scientology, you can't ask for, and you will never get, any proof of anything.  You can't even notice that you have no proof.  How can anyone possibly think about a subject that they cannot verify any part of?

And that is, in a nutshell, how Hubbard effectively and intentionally destroyed every Scientologists' ability to think logically and rationally about Scientology.

All that is left is belief.  As Hubbard often said, if you believe strongly enough, it will be true.  This is why Scientologists always state their beliefs as if they were proven facts.  Hubbard taught them: this is how you "think".

After leaving Scientology, the most difficult task may be learning how to think again and how to tell what is true and what is a lie.

    *EDIT: By “Scientologist” I mean, very specifically, those who believe in Scientology, exactly as Hubbard taught it. I do not mean Freezone or those who only accept some of Scientology. Anyone who rejects some of Hubbard's technology would be called a “squirrel” by true believers. I'm not talking about squirrels.

    In my mind, those who are able to disagree with Hubbard and who are willing to reject parts of Scientology's dogma are well on the way to re-learning how to think. I commend them totally and this article is not about them.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on March 18, 2011, 08:58:45 AM
Friday, March 4, 2011

                       Why Is It So Hard to Give Up Scientology?

One of the continuing mysteries about Scientology is the dogged persistence of some Scientologists, both inside and outside of the Church of Scientology, in their devotion to L. Ron Hubbard and to Scientology's technology despite its almost complete lack of success.

It is no secret that there are no Scientology OTs.  Even Scientologists are aware of this, though they prefer not to think of it at all.

It is no secret that today's "Clear" does not match Hubbard's definition of Clear from Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.  Unlike Hubbard's original definition, today's "Clear" doesn't have any more powers or abilities than non-Scientologists ("wogs").

And every Scientologist who has completed one of the Grades is very well aware that they do not have the promised Abilities Gained for their Grades as explicitly promised on Scientology's Grade Chart.

Yet, some Scientologists doggedly maintain that "Scientology works!" despite its consistent lack of results and failed promises.

Why is that?

There are, in my opinion, a number of reasons.  While individual reasons undoubtedly differ, I believe one or more of the following justifications is the primary reason they simply cannot let go.

    * Investment.  This can be a factor.  Scientologists may invest hundreds of thousands of dollars and many years of their lives to Scientology.  They may have sacrificed their family, their job, their property and their friends in support of Scientology.  For some, it is extremely difficult to admit that they wasted so much on a scam.  This leads us to:
    * Reputation.  A number of people have made a big deal about how wonderful Scientology was and how very, very superior they are because they are a Scientologist.  Think of Tom Cruise as a good example of this.  As a result, they cannot confront the massive embarrassment if they had to admit they were wrong.  (It does not appear that Cruise has woken up yet, but this factor might deter him from saying anything when he does.)
    * OT.  Yes, despite the fact that none of Scientology's OT Levels have ever produced a person with any "super powers", some Scientologists still believe that some day, somehow, some Scientology technique will produce a "true OT" and they want to be there when it happens.  Sixty years of failure hasn't convinced them that this isn't going to happen.
    * Having all the answers.  In my mind, this is one of the biggest reasons some Scientologists stick with Scientology despite everything.  Those inside of Scientology have all the answers.  In their minds, this statement isn't hyperbole, it is the bare truth.  According to Scientology they literally have the answers to everything: illness, insanity, war, crime, illiteracy, drug addiction, intelligence, failure, success, life, death, ... any situation, any condition and every problem has been "solved" by L. Ron Hubbard.  There are no more mysteries, there are no more problems that can't be fixed.  It is a feeling of tremendous power, certainty and superiority.  Naturally, Scientologists cannot and must not check these "solutions" to see if they really do what Hubbard claimed, for, of course, they don't.

To any Scientologist clinging to that failed technology because of one of these reasons:  You are not alone.  All of us ex-Scientologists have had to confront the fact that Scientology has not delivered on any of its promises.  All of us had to confront the scary fact that, no, we don't have all the answers.  Many of us believed in Scientology long past the point when it should have been obvious, even to us true believers, that it was a fraud.

It may be difficult to admit you were conned, but that embarrassment passes quickly and, after that, you can live in honesty and truth.  Trust me, the relief is incredible.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on March 18, 2011, 08:59:59 AM
Monday, March 7, 2011

                       What Annoys Me Most About Scientologists

I do not and will never hate Scientologists.  I was one.  I think that most Scientologists are good people who have been trapped by their own desire to do good work and help others.

I will not attack Scientologists for practicing Scientology.  That is their right.  What a person believes is their business and no one else's.  Scientology, the belief system, should not be banned.  Ideas cannot be erased and to try to do so only gives them more importance.

I just want to point out where Scientologists' behavior varies significantly from what they say they advocate, especially Scientologists who have left the Church of Scientology.

First up, responsibility.  Or, to be more precise, Scientologists' universal refusal to take responsibility for what they have done.

Scientologists simply don't take responsibility for their actions, or non-actions, in relation to Scientology.  Ex-churchies inevitably blame David Miscavige for everything.  It is his, and only his, fault that things are bad in the church.

Did they applaud when Miscavige changed everything?  Yes they did.  Did they hop right up and take the now-"corrupted" courses and buy the now-"corrupted" books?  Yes they did.  Did they pay lip-service to the "Keeping Scientology Working" policy while applauding every little thing that Miscavige did to subvert and violate that policy?  Yes they did.  Did they do anything to stop David Miscavige from taking over and destroying their church?  Why, no, they didn't.

I know that some Scientologists did refuse to go along with Miscavige's crimes, lies and abuse but they were kicked out.  And a vast majority of Scientologists whole-heartedly condemned the very people who were taking responsibility.

And now Scientologists blame Miscavige and only Miscavige for everything that they allowed to happen and even applauded.

No responsibility.  None.

But wait, there's more!  We have, in the Independent Scientology community, certain executives who worked directly with and for David Miscavige.  While they were "in favor" they supported, forwarded and emulated Miscavige's corruption, crimes, lies and abuse.  They were part of the machinery that corrupted the Scientology technology.  They were part of the gang that beat up and mentally abused staff.  They were part of the evil.

And, now, they are the biggest supporters of the "It's all Miscavige, it's only Miscavige, I'm not responsible at all!" propaganda.

In other words, those most responsible for supporting Miscavige, those most responsible for forwarding his corruption and his lies, those most responsible for the evil that they now condemn, are saying that, no, they "were not responsible at all!"  Perhaps that's no surprise, but it is very disappointing.  I'd much rather hear, in detail, how they are taking full responsibility for their crimes, their abuse and their lies.

Yes, I know that some of these top executives have "admitted" to some bad acts but they still blame Miscavige for "making them do it".  It's still no responsibility.  They were in positions of power in Scientology and they used their power to help Miscavige do his evil deeds and they used their power to destroy those who tried to stop Miscavige -- for years.  They have much to answer for but, no, it's "not their fault".

It really annoys me that Scientologists emphatically will not take responsibility for what they have done or should have done.  Truly, the dirtiest word in Scientology is "responsibility".

Next up is confront.  Scientologists cannot confront.

And this is also very annoying to me.  Scientologists will brag about their confront.  They have done the TRs Course and, boy, can they now confront!

But they can't and they won't.

If you try to discuss simple facts with a Scientologist, they plug their ears and go "La-la-la-la-la-la", they delete your comments, they compile lists of websites they can't look at, books they can't read, newspapers they must not see, people they must never talk to and they generally run away.

They do not confront.

If you mention the simple fact that Scientology has never produced a single OT, they cannot hear you.  They actually are aware that there are no OTs but they cannot confront that fact.  The same goes for the non-existent abilities of Clear and the promised-but-missing abilities from the Grades.

The same goes for all their world-saving "solutions".  Their "solutions" have all failed in the real world, but those facts cannot, will not, be confronted.

These are simple facts.  Every Scientologist knows these facts are true but they cannot confront them.  Whenever I've mentioned some of these facts to a Scientologist, there is a deafening silence.  No debate, no argument, just run-run away and never confront it.

And finally, justifications.  In Scientology dogma, justifications are Bad.  According to L. Ron Hubbard, when you have done something wrong, you will inevitably try to justify it in some way.  Scientologists are supposed to recognize that, when you hear justifications, look for the harmful actions or neglect that preceeded it.

But all I hear from Scientologists are justifications.  Scientologists are well-equipt with many "reasons why" things didn't work out as promised.  They can give you all the justificatons why those processes didn't work, why these "solutions" never solved things, why those exhalted Scientologists were found to have committed massive fraud and why they ended up with their church destroyed.

And none of their justifications match reality or lead to any resolution.  Here is where Scientologists' refusal to take responsibility and their lack of confront come together to create the justifications why it isn't their fault, it isn't Scientology's fault and it isn't Hubbard's fault.  It is always someone else's fault, someone else's error or someone else's "evil intentions".

Scientologists' solution to Scientology's failings and broken promises is to justify, prevaricate and make up "reasons why" -- but never to simply confront the facts, take responsibility and live with the truth.  It's hard work being a Scientologist.

I have no problem with Scientologists practicing Scientology and getting whatever gains they get from it.  But they pretend to a reality that doesn't exist  because they cannot confront the reality that is.  Yes, they can feel better.  No, they cannot "go OT".

Scientologists' universal lack of responsibility and inability to confront annoys me a lot.  You see, these are things that Scientologists are proud of: their superior responsibility and their powerful confront -- and yet they have none.  They don't even try.

This is Scientology.  Scientology isn't what they say, it's what Scientologists do.  And the above is what Scientologists do.

If I were still a Scientologist, I'd be so ashamed.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on March 21, 2011, 08:12:34 AM
Calling All Scientology OTs!
We have another guest blogger today.  As a service to all Scientologists, I am publishing this Open Letter to all OTs from a Scientology OT.

- Just Bill

An Open Letter to All Scientology OTs
A Call to Action!

Dear OT,

As you are aware (because all of us OTs are fully aware of everything), Scientology is in grave danger.

The Church of Scientology is on the verge of complete destruction.  Even Scientology outside of the church is in serious trouble.  Major media are attacking Scientology, spreading misinformation about our wonderful religion.  Attacks and protests are continuing.  Legal actions are in progress.

It is time to go to battle.  We are OTs.  We are "at cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, form and thought, subjective and objective."  We have the power and we have the will to use it.

Yes, we've withheld our powers because it would be too steep a gradient for mere "wogs" to confront, but we can no longer hold ourselves in check.  The very existence of Scientology is at stake.  This is no time to be gentle.

Here is what you must do.  Go to a location where there are lots of witnesses.  Ensure that newspapers, TV and radio have been called and show up.

Then show your true OT powers!  Levitate your car, or make it disappear.  Grab Osama bin Laden from wherever he is hiding and fly him right to prison.  Create objects out of thin air!  Read people's minds.  Disarm all the criminals in your city without blinking an eye!  Show all these "wogs" the true power of Scientology.

You know that the minute we show all these "wogs" what Scientology really can do, all opposition will cease and everybody would flock to our churches, clamoring for our services.

It's time to stop the pretence that we're normal people with no more powers or any better solutions than these "wogs".

Take off the gloves!  Show your true powers!  It's Scientology's last hope - for us OTs, this will be easy!

A Scientology OT

PS: And would all graduates from the PTS/SP Course please "confront and shatter" all the world's suppression?  Thanks.

Well, that's the letter.  Sounds like a workable idea, don't you think?  If all the Scientology OTs demonstrated their true OT powers, Hubbard would be vindicated and Scientology would be saved -- not just saved, but Scientology would become the most popular religion overnight.

Without some demonstration of Scientology's miraculous results, they haven't much hope.

There, I've published the call.  All we can do now is look for the massive demonstration of truly amazing OT powers, soon to be unleashed.

Isn't this exciting?  I can't wait!

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on March 26, 2011, 07:27:24 AM
Sunday, March 20, 2011
                            The Redefinitions of Scientology

A while ago, I wrote about the false claims of Scientology, especially outside of the Church of Scientology.  One practitioner claimed he was producing "Real live OTs!"  I object to fraud and deception, and this claim certainly lands squarely in that category.

At least, within the Church of Scientology, they've stopped promising the "Clear" as Hubbard described and stopped promising the "OT" that Hubbard defined.  See The Disappearing States of Clear and OT.

In that "Real live OTs!" article I urged Scientology practitioners to stop promising results they could not deliver.   But Scientology practitioners still promise the Grade Chart results that they can't and won't deliver.

Recent discussions amongst Scientologists make me think that this fraud and deception may change and the promises will follow the current trend in Scientology of redefining the expected results until they don't promise anything at all.

We may soon see Scientology practitioners changing the Ability Gained of Grade 0 from "Ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject" to "A person who feels better about communication."

Grade 1 will change from "Ability to recognize the source of problems and make them vanish" to "A person who feels better about problems."

And so forth.

Why do I think this?  I've been following the raging debates on Leaving Scientology, Marty's blog and Scientology-Cult and I have seen Scientology True Believers come to an interesting consensus.

Scientologists seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of changing the definition of OT from Hubbard's:

    A being who is cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, form and thought, subjectively and objectively


    A being who does things!

In the discussions and articles, this is the new definition of OT.  You start a new business?  You're an "OT"!  You volunteer down at the local shelter?  You're an "OT"!   It was even mentioned that moving your hand is the act of an "OT"!

What is the difference, then, between a "wog" starting a business and a Scientology OT starting a business?  The Scientology OT is aware that they are being OT!  And they are "being OT" because of Scientology.

They don't do anything particularly exceptional, but they are doing it as an OT!  That makes all the difference -- to a Scientologist.

And there you have it!  That totally solves the problem of Scientology never producing an OT as Hubbard defined it.  It solves the problem of Hubbard's last years, where he was sick, in pain, hiding from the law and betrayed by those he trusted.  It solves the problem for all those OTs that didn't get the powers and abilities promised.

Just redefine "OT" and you're good to go.

Well, I have to admit that does come under the heading of "don't promise what you can't deliver".  If you promise nothing, you're totally covered.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on April 02, 2011, 10:59:27 AM
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Hubbard's Theory of Past Lives
I've received a number of questions about Hubbard's theory of past lives and a number of requests to explain it.

OK, I'll try to explain what Hubbard's theory was, but it can be confusing, even to Scientologists.

When Hubbard wrote Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, and other early Dianetic books, he did not believe in nor espouse any theory of past lives.

He thought we only lived once.

Part of the Dianetic theory is that a person's mental or physical problems are caused by "chains" of related, harmful events.  If a "preclear" (person getting Dianetic therapy) has, let's say, trouble hearing, it will be found, according to Hubbard, that there is a chain of harmful incidents related to his ears or hearing.  As part of Hubbard's theory, this "chain" is held in place by one "basic" incident: the earliest incident related to ears/hearing.  Once that basic incident was relieved, the person's hearing would be recovered.

I'm not saying this is true, just that's the theory.  I bring up the theory because of this:  As part of Dianetic therapy, the auditor keeps asking for an "earlier, similar incident" until they get to this basic incident.

With the idea that we only live once, the search for "earlier, similar" would often end up with "memories" from the womb.  There is quite a bit from Hubbard about prenatal memories of harmful incidents.

And then a number of preclears, upon being asked for an "earlier, similar incident" started "recovering memories" from before this life.

Initially, Hubbard's reaction to this was to posit a "genetic memory".  He decided that an entity he called a "genetic entity" (or "GE"), was remembering evolutionary information.  Hubbard even wrote a book, A History of Man, about this.  In that book Hubbard claimed that this genetic memory not only went back through evolutionary life forms to the earliest amoeba, but even further back to the earliest formation of atoms.

This book, The History of Man, is where the derogatory term "clam" for Scientologist comes from, although, technically, this is not part of Scientology and is not "whole track" (a thetan's complete life-after-life memory)  or "past lives".

All this didn't last long.  Rather quickly, Hubbard changed his mind and started recognizing and talking about past lives, not "genetic memory" but actual memories from previous incarnations.  This was not a popular decision amongst many Dianeticists, who broke with Hubbard at that time.

But that was OK with Hubbard.  He had discovered the "thetan", the soul, the spirit, the "being himself, not his body or his mind" -- and Scientology was born.

Hubbard's explanation of the life-death-birth cycle goes roughly like this:  Everyone is a thetan. Scientologist or wog, everyone is a thetan, inhabiting a body. As part of arriving on this planet, almost all the people here (the thetans), have been programmed to "report to the implant station" when they die.

When and where did this programming occur? Primarily, that was the OT III "Xenu" incident, 75 million years ago.

So, when anyone dies, they immediately "report to the implant station" for a refresh of their programming.

Hubbard claimed that there were implant stations on the far side of the moon and on Mars. I don't recall him ever saying Venus had an implant station (just trains, apparently).

The implant stations are all automatic, no people there. The thetans receive a refresh of their programming ("implanting") and then are given orders to "go pick up a new body on Earth".

So the thetan just goes to Earth and picks up a body.

Exactly when they inhabit the baby body is not set. They might inhabit the body before or after birth, but they will hover nearby in any case. Thetans will fight each other for a body, since there are more thetans than bodies.

Some thetans will take an adult body that is in a coma or has been seriously injured which, Hubbard said, explained amnesia and drastic personality changes at those times.

That's the dogma, according to Hubbard, as near as I can recall. I may have missed a few minor details.

By the way, Hubbard got quite upset if you called previous lives "reincarnation" since, in his version, the birth-death-rebirth cycle is not tied to spiritual progress towards Nirvana.  In his version, it's all a horrible trap that leads, in a dwindling spiral, down to total degradation. It is a Bad Thing that "Scientology can help you with".

In Scientology's system of belief, people's past lives can contain, literally, anything, including scientifically impossible things.  No "memory" is doubted, all is accepted no matter what.  Some Scientologists are quite enamored with who they were and what they did in all these past lives.

Hubbard, of course, more than anyone else.  For a pulp science fiction and adventure writer, it was perfect.  Here comes the space opera!  For many, many years, Hubbard loved to tell audiences his "whole track" experiences -- usually space opera and usually with himself as the brave, wise, powerful hero.  And his yarns told in private could, apparently, be even wilder.

Unfortunately, Hubbard forgot to take scientific progress into account.  He made up stuff that he thought could never be disproven.  But science does progress and science could discover what was previously unknowable.

I'm sure there are hundreds of statements we could mention, but let's limit ourselves to a few well-known claims.

    * Hubbard claimed that the physical universe was over "four quadrillion years old".  Scientists have estimated the actual age of the universe to be closer to 12 billion years old.
    * Hubbard declared the location of the OT III "Xenu" events "75 million years ago" to be the current major volcanoes of Earth.  He very specifically named them.  The problem is that geologists all know that those volcanoes didn't even exist that long ago.
    * Most, if not all, ancient Earth civilizations used super-advanced technology.
    * The ancient gods and goddesses were real.  They were actually "OTs" visiting Earth -- but have since been "trapped and degraded".

Anything Hubbard could think up, he claimed was a real, true whole track memory.  Scientologists are pretty much obliged to go along with it.

If anyone else is seriously wondering if Hubbard's version of the whole track is true, you really need to stay far, far away from Scientology -- you are just the kind of gullible person they are looking for.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on April 20, 2011, 10:29:29 PM
Friday, April 15, 2011

        What's Wrong With the Simon Wiesenthal Center Honoring Tom Cruise?

There has been a bit of a fuss about the recent announcement that the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Museum of Tolerance plans to honor Tom Cruise with its prestigious Humanitarian Award.

It is a very controversial decision.  I suspect that the Simon Wiesenthal Center had no idea it would be quite so controversial when they made the decision.

I don't think they fully understand what is wrong with that decision.

It isn't about Tom Cruise.  I don't know Cruise personally, and I certainly don't have any information about what he has done to warrant such an honor as a humanitarian.  Maybe he has done some amazing things that we don't know about.  I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on that.

The fact that Tom Cruise used to be the celebrity face of the Church of Scientology was not, and should not be, a factor in that decision.  After all, the museum has "tolerance" in their name -- and tolerance is a very, very good thing.

The above are not reasons why this award is a bad idea.

The problem with this award is how the Church of Scientology will use this award.  They will trumpet this award as if it means that the Simon Wiesenthal Center:

    * approves of Scientology,
    * endorses Scientology,
    * validates Scientology's claims that they are a "humanitarian group" and
    * confirms that Scientology supports Human Rights.

Of course none of those claims are true, but the Church of Scientology will spin the news of the award for exactly that purpose.  That's what they do.

And that's what's wrong here.  Even if the Simon Wiesenthal Center asks the Church of Scientology to not do that, they will anyway.  Scientologists do not believe that requests by non-Scientologists are binding on them.  They will do whatever they please.

The Church of Scientology is NOT a humanitarian group by any stretch of imagination.  It is arguable that the church is the biggest violator of Human Rights in the United States.  See my article Scientology and the Declaration of Human Rights.

The Church of Scientology does NOT contribute to any humanitarian efforts anywhere in the world.  Individual Scientologists certainly may, and I do recognize and honor that, but the Church of Scientology itself does not contribute anything.  See my article The Church of Scientology Loves Disasters.  This is an excellent example of how the church exploits the good work of others to polish their own image -- exactly as they will with this award.

But worst of all, in relation to this award, is how the Church of Scientology frames the Holocaust in relation to their own dogma.  I don't think the Simon Wiesenthal Center wants to have any association with Scientology because of their beliefs in this area.

The Church of Scientology redefines and exploits the Holocaust to forward their personal vendetta against the psychiatric profession -- they blame psychiatrists, and only psychiatrists, for the Holocaust.  Professor Deborah Lipstadt has termed this "soft-core" Holocaust denial -- although I'd use harsher terms to describe such crass exploitation.  Professor Lipstadt's writings on the church are here.

Second, and by far the worst, L. Ron Hubbard's dogma states that anything that happens to a person is their fault and only their fault.  This is called the "overt-motivator sequence".

The following are direct quotes from Hubbard's Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary.

    an intentionally committed harmful act committed in an effort to resolve a problem.
    an overt act against oneself by another. In other words, a motivator is a harmful action performed by somebody else against oneself.
    if a fellow does an overt, he will then believe he's got to have a motivator or that he has had a motivator.

Hubbard teaches that one cannot be harmed in any way by any action unless one has first committed a similar "overt" against someone else.  To put it simply, one cannot be harmed by a punch unless one has first punched another.  This is in the context that we have all lived thousands of lives and such overts may have been committed in some previous life.

Thus, in Scientology belief, all harm that happens to you is completely and totally your fault, you "pulled it in" because of your prior overt.

If you are paying attention then you will understand what this means in relation to the Holocaust.  According to Scientology, all the victims of the Holocaust were guilty of overts and it was all their fault that this atrocity happened.  Yes, this is straight Scientology dogma.

Understand that this is not some "fringe" belief of Scientology that can be changed or discarded, this is a fundamental teaching of L. Ron Hubbard.  These concepts are core, unchangeable beliefs of Scientology.

I think it's wonderful that the Simon Weisenthal Center demonstrates tolerance towards Scientology, but I really don't think they want to directly associate themselves with the Church of Scientology in any way.

To any Anonymous who might be reading this, I have some advice:  Do not protest this awards ceremony, it is highly unlikely that such an action would turn out well for Anonymous.  It would be easily misunderstood that Anonymous was protesting the Simon Weisenthal Center.  The Church of Scientology would have a field day making sure that was the perception.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on May 10, 2011, 12:09:11 PM
Saturday, May 7, 2011
                                   The Scientology "Soft Landing Place"

Prior to 1800, there was a problem with opium addiction.  In December of 1804,  Friedrich Sertürner extracted a highly potent analgesic from opium, which he called morphine.

It was soon to be touted as a solution to opium addiction.  Unfortunately, soon many people were addicted to morphine.

In 1895, a German drug company marketed diacetylmorphine as an over-the-counter drug under the trademark name Heroin.  It was chiefly developed as a morphine substitute that "did not have morphine's addictive side-effects".

It was touted as a solution to morphine addiction.

However, contrary to the company's advertising as a "non-addictive morphine substitute," heroin would soon have one of the highest rates of dependence amongst its users.

In 1937, another lab developed methadone, a "safe" alternative to heroin.  So the poor addicts could have yet another drug to be addicted to.

The problem with all of this is obvious.  If you substitute one "solution" to addiction with another "solution" that works exactly like the original, you really haven't solved the addiction, have you?  You've just substituted one addiction for another.

And so we get to "Scientology outside of the Church of Scientology".

While I'm not specifically comparing Scientology to a physically addictive drug, I will contend that Scientology, and specifically the temporary euphoria induced at the end of most auditing sessions, can be quite addictive in its own way.

While in this temporary state of euphoria, Scientologists will feel capable of almost anything.  They will actually attest to "having gained" the most amazing abilities, knowledge and powers which, when the euphoria fades in an hour, a day or so, completely fail to materialize.

And most Scientologists crave that wonderful sense of power and ability more than anything else.  They live to go back into session.  They pay tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of dollars to get back into session.

The more consecutive sessions you have, the better it gets.  Up to a point, the more consecutive sessions you have, the longer the subsequent euphoria lasts -- sometimes it can last for days -- but it always fades, leaving the Scientologist without any new abilities or powers, but with a craving for more.

While continuing to get these feelings of euphoria, Scientologists feel that they are "making progress up the Bridge" to OT.  They have hope.  They think it all "works" -- that all the time and money they have spent was worthwhile.

Yes, for many, Scientology is psychologically addictive.

And, despite the assurances of the original manufacturers and distributors of morphine, heroin and methadone, the solution to addiction is not "more of the same".

There are those who laud the providers of Scientology outside of the Church of Scientology because they provide a "soft landing place" for Scientologists who have just left the church.  They provide a version of Scientology that "isn't as abusive" and "isn't quite so strict" -- and, therefore, "isn't as bad".

I do understand that concept, but I do not agree.

They are still delivering the same "drug".  They are still promising the same false promises of "miraculous powers and abilities" but are only delivering the same, addictive, temporary euphoria.

They are still rushing their clients through to write their glowing "Success Stories" about how wonderful it all is -- quickly before the euphoria fades.  They are still publishing these euphoric "Success Stories" as if these were talking about actual, permanent gains.

They are still pushing the same "drug" -- and more of the same is not a solution to that addiction.

My advice to Scientologists who have left the Church of Scientology is that they give it a rest.

There is no hurry.  Scientology outside of the church will still be around in six months or a year.

Take your time.  There is a ton of information that you have not been permitted to see and that you really do need to know.  Don't rush into the arms of another group that dictates which information is acceptable and which is not.  Take your time and read all that "forbidden" information.  It may be upsetting at first -- the truth often is.

Let some time pass and take a look at what actually happened to you in Scientology.  Without the temporary euphoria and without the relentless church propaganda about how "wonderful" and "successful" Scientology is, take an honest look at yourself and your friends.  What were the actual results?

Stop using Scientology terms and concepts for a while and see what happens.  Reframe your thoughts and questions into standard English (or whatever your native language is) and see all the ideas and solutions that have already been developed around those concepts outside of Scientology.

Look around at the world you have been cut off from.  There are many, many people who are living great lives and doing wonderful things outside of Scientology's tiny world.  You can learn a lot from just looking at the real world.

Get in touch with all those old friends and family that you disconnected from (officially or unofficially).  Catch up on the news.

Then, in six months or a year, if you still think you need Scientology, go ahead and find a Scientology practitioner who you can trust -- who is honest and doesn't implement the abusive parts of Scientology -- if you can find one.

I'm betting that, by then, you will enjoy being free too much to go back.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on May 26, 2011, 05:24:55 PM
Saturday, May 14, 2011
                                            Easy There!

I have noticed that some of the more enthusiastic whistle-blowers against the Church of Scientology tend to jump on comments and articles that are not, actually, all that pro-Scientology.

The fact that an article or comment isn't completely negative about Scientology does not warrant an attack.

The fact that a person might say something nice about Scientology or might protest against "attacking a religion" does not necessarily mean they are a Scientologist.   With fewer and fewer actual Scientologists, it is more likely this will be the case as time goes on.

To viciously attack some article or comment when a more reasonable response would be more appropriate, makes us Scientology critics look like the insane fanatics.  To attack a commenter, who really isn't pro-Scientology, looks very bad.  A vicious anti-Scientology attack can invalidate everything a more reasonable whistle-blower might be trying to say.

Err, if you will, on the side of milder, more reasonable responses to articles and comments about Scientology.  You can say the same things, but from the viewpoint that the author is merely misinformed.  This is tremendously effective.  When some Scientology sock-puppet attacks you, you own the high ground.  When a Scientology apologist insults you and makes crazy accusations, you come out far, far above them.

If the author is not a Scientologist, you will get back an intelligent response and will, perhaps, change their mind about the Church of Scientology.   If you attack the author, you will solidify in their mind the idea that critics of Scientology are insane fanatics.

Understand that you cannot change a Scientologist's mindset, but you will influence the lurkers.  Keep that in mind.  Do not engage in a battle with a Scientologist, just expose their lies.

Certainly, every single Scientology lie should be debunked, but it is most effective when done calmly, reasonably and with as much respect as you can muster.

Let the Scientologist froth and foam, insult and accuse.  Let us take the high road, always -- because it makes them look horrible.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on June 14, 2011, 11:53:20 AM
                                  How to Talk to a Scientologist

I don't have the conceit that I'm an expert in this subject, but I think I can offer some advice and possibly point to other sources for more information.

This is an important subject.  If a family member or friend has become a Scientologist, you can still talk to them, you can help, but you need to be careful.

You need to educate yourself on what is going on with the Scientologist. There are a number of good people with insight and great advice:

    Steve Hassan's Freedom of Mind Center, especially his book, Combating Cult Mind Control.
    Cult Information and Awareness Library
    Wikipedia [cult]. Some good information and references.
    Google is your friend.

The most important thing for you to know about Scientologists is that Hubbard has installed a minefield around them to “protect” them from outside influences. You need to avoid this minefield if you want to help them.

So the very first rule is: Do not say anything that will cause the Scientologist to disconnect from you. This means you should not say anything critical or negative about Scientology at this stage.  This is one of the mines. If you have already moved in that direction you need to stop.

The reason for this is that you can't do them any good if you can't talk to them. That's why Scientology enforces disconnection so vigorously.

That doesn't mean you can't help them. You can help them leave the cult, you just need to avoid the minefield.

This may be difficult if you are aware of how dangerous and destructive the church is, but you must avoid disconnection to have them remain willing to talk to you.

You need to create a safe atmosphere for the Scientologist to talk and for you to listen. At first, that is the best thing. Do not comment or criticize at this point – just be a sympathetic listener. One of the key elements of listening is staying silent. The less you say, the better. Use “Uh huh?”, “Really?”, “I didn't know that” and anything else that is non-committal but encouraging. Allow the conversation to drift to other subjects but encourage them to talk about their experiences and hopes in Scientology.

Once this safe space has been established, you can ask carefully planned questions. You will know what questions, but along the lines of, "What do you want to accomplish?", "What do you hope for?" You don't have to sarcastically ask the obvious, "... and how's that going for you?" – they will automatically think that themselves. Try to be as non-judgemental as possible. The minute you scoff, criticize, roll your eyes or laugh at the wrong point, they will stop opening up to you.

The Scientologist may ask you “What have you heard about Scientology?” or “What do you think about Scientology?” Do not go into what you have heard or any criticism of Scientology. This puts the Scientologist into “handle the Enemy mode", another of the mines, and then you are no longer talking to the Scientologist but to automatic and carefully coached patter.

Say, instead, “Oh, you know, there are lots of rumors and stuff out there. It isn't important – I want to know about you. What have you been doing?” They may try to persist in their “handling” so you will need to persist as well. “Really, I'm not interested in what others say about Scientology. I just want to hear how you're doing.” Whatever happens, do not let them go into “handle the Enemy mode". That will not help them.

Note that you do not say "I want to hear about Scientology".   That would be very, very wrong.  You want to say something like, "I want to hear about your experiences."  You want them to talk about themselves.

They may go into “recruitment mode". This may be inevitable and you may need some patience to get through this stage. This one may be harder to avoid since you have said you want to hear what they are doing. They will usually start talking about how everything is wonderful and Scientology is perfect and solved all their problems. Do not express any negative attitudes but do not express any interest in doing any Scientology. If they try to press you into taking a course or buying a book just say something like, "I'm doing fine, I'm not interested right now" and leave it at that. Be patient. Trust me, it's as boring to them as it is to you. They will soon move on.

What you are waiting for is for them to relax and just start talking. If you are patient and non-judgemental, this will happen.

You need to understand that the Scientologist already does know that something is very wrong with their church. True, they have no idea how wrong things are, and they don't know how corrupt the leadership is, but they are definitely aware that things are not right. You don't have to convince them of this. You are trying to create a safe space for them to talk about those things.

When they start talking about the stuff they have noticed that is wrong with the Church of Scientology, do not be too enthusiastic in your agreement. Be interested. Say things like “I didn't know that!”, "What happened next?"  This is what you've been waiting for so just listening at this point is vital.  If you immediately bring up all the negative things you know about Scientology, you will undoubtedly push them right back into “handle the Enemy mode" – and destroy any progress you've made.

Note that, at this stage, they will start to disagree with the church but will still consider Scientology to be "wonderful". Don't worry, almost all Scientologists go through this stage. For most, this is just a temporary stage.  Note, also, that attacks against the Scientology belief system aren't very useful.  For now, the Scientologist will start to blame everything on David Miscavige.  Don't worry, this is OK at this stage.

After they have expressed some criticism of their own about the Church of Scientology, they might then ask you what you know. This is an entirely different question than the “handle the Enemy mode" earlier. Now, they really do want to know. Be careful. Do not, at that moment, bring up everything you know about the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige and L. Ron Hubbard – this might trigger “handle the Enemy mode". Answer any specific questions with specific answers and direct them to a specific Internet site. In my opinion, Wikipedia may be the best initial site for them. It really is one of the most balanced presentations about Scientology on the Internet – no ranting and each assertion, both pro- and anti-, must be documented.

If you want to know the attitude you should present to the Scientologist at this stage, read how the Wikipedia information is presented.  Nothing extreme, nothing accusative, some acknowledgement of good aspects while calmly presenting the negatives as well.

Other good sites for newly-awakening Scientologists are those that present Scientologists' "Doubt Formulas".  These are true believer Scientologists who are applying Scientology itself to decide about the Church of Scientology.  Examples: Leaving Scientology, Geir Isene, Michael Tilse, Luis Garcia.  As I've said, these people are using "standard Scientology" to determine that David Miscavige and his Church of Scientology are extremely bad and should not be supported.  This may seem silly to you but, to a Scientologist, these are very persuasive arguments.

At this point, they will probably continue to investigate on their own. They will need your help and support. Your best bet is to continue to listen and help them find good sources of information – keeping in mind that they can't go from Scientologist to non-Scientologist in one leap.

It is normal for them to be very, very afraid of what the church will “to do them”. This is no idle fear.  If they work for a Scientologist, they could lose their job.  If they have friends or family who are Scientologists, they could be disconnected.  Often, they need to keep their doubts secret from other Scientologists.  Assure them that this is quite common and is being done by many Scientologists.

As more and more people leave the Church of Scientology, this becomes less important.

Good luck.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on July 29, 2011, 07:54:00 PM
Monday, July 25, 2011
                                  Scientology Has Failed

One of the things a Scientologist must confront and must acknowledge is that Scientology has failed.

That is simply a fact.  Until a Scientologist confronts and acknowledges this, they will not be able to move on.  Even if they believe that "Scientology works", they cannot deny that Scientology has failed.

It could be said with considerable truth that failure actually defines the history and evolution of Scientology.

Scientology came into being when Dianetics failed.  Certainly, Dianetics appeared to have promise and some interesting results were reported, but Hubbard promised miracles and, beyond rare, anecdotal stories, none of his promised miracles ever appeared.  Worse, from Hubbard's point of view, his promised, miraculous state of Clear never appeared.  Dianetics was a failure.

Scientology arose from the ashes of Dianetics and promised even more miracles.  Not only was Scientology going to produce "Releases" with abilities far beyond the human state, not only was Scientology going to finally produce "real Clears", but Scientology was ultimately going to produce a god-like state Hubbard called "Operating Thetan".

And Scientology failed.

Along came "the Grade Chart” to fix those failures.  The problem was, Hubbard explained, “out gradients” and “missing actions”.  The Grade Chart was going to fix all that ... and failed.  Still none of the promised results appeared.

The lack of results, Hubbard justified, was still due to “out gradients”, and so tons of new processes were added to the “lower Bridge”.  And sold.  And still the promised results failed to appear.

The next excuse for failure was “illiteracy” which led to Hubbard’s “Study Technology”.

Another excuse for failure was “drugs” which ended up with the “Purification Rundown” and Narconon.

One continuing excuse for failure was “out ethics” which engendered a whole raft of new products and controls:  Ethics, Security Checks, FPRD, Criminon and so much more.

And still Scientology failed and failed and failed.  Even those “solutions” were failing.  In real-world, independent tests, Hubbard’s “Study Technology” was a failure. Doctors confirmed that the Purification Rundown failed to “detoxify” anyone.  Criminon and Narconon were exposed as ineffective frauds.

And still there are no Releases, no Clears and no OTs.  To this day, Scientology continues to fail to provide any of the results promised.

Each of Scientology’s failures engendered more excuses, more "reasons why", more justifications -- and more “services” to sell to “solve” those failures.  And so Scientology became the “Science of justifications for failure”.

What does a Scientologist do with all these failures when they cannot confront them?

    Ignore it.  This is a Scientology Standard Tech method of dealing with it.  Pretend you don’t notice the complete lack of results.  Pretend that somewhere, someone is “winning”.  Pretend that the temporary euphoria after a session means “real case gain”.
    “Fix” it.  That’s what the history of Scientology is all about:  One “solution” to failure after another -- with each “solution”, in turn, failing.
    Sell it.  This is another Scientology “solution”.  Ignore the failures and keep selling the promised results.  In the real world, we call that “fraud”.
    Try harder.  Believe it would work if only you could “do it right” and so, Scientologists keep trying the same “solutions” over and over in hopes that some day the promised results will magically appear.
    Give up.  Accept the ultimate Scientology reason for all its failures: That all Scientology’s failures are your fault.  You are too awful a being for Scientology to ever work on you.

These are all the standard Scientology solutions, they are built into Scientology itself.  Scientologists are very familiar with all these, but may I suggest one additional choice that a Scientologist could make:

    Reality.  Recognize that Scientology has failed and cannot and will not ever deliver what Hubbard promised.  Recognize that each “solution” just results in more failure.  Take whatever bits you might have found useful and leave the rest.  Step off the Bridge to Total Failure.  Stop wasting your time, your money and your life on such consistent and continual failure.  Start winning by deliberately not using Scientology.

Just because Scientology has failed doesn’t mean you have to.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on August 14, 2011, 05:55:36 PM
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Is It Over Yet?
Sometimes, when I am reading a novel or watching a movie, I realize that I simply don't care about any of the characters.  Are they going to succeed?  Are they going to fail?  Who cares?

If I find I don't care, I'll put that book down or walk out of that movie.  Why waste my time?  There are too many excellent books and excellent movies for me to waste my time trudging through a boring one.

And so we get to the Glorious Battle between the mighty Church of Scientology and the bold rebels of the Independent Movement -- with the fate of "every man, woman and child for the next endless trillions of years" at stake.


Really boring.

Really, really boring.

It appears that all the characters in this badly written drama are very excited, worried, angry and whatnot but I don't care -- and I don't see how anyone not directly involved cares one tiniest bit.

Certainly I care about all the victims of the Church of Scientology, but that isn't what they are fighting about.  They are fighting over control of Scientology.

Is it important to "every man, woman and child" on this planet?  No, of course not.

Is the fate of the Church of Scientology hanging in the balance?  Nope.  The church has been destroyed and all you see is the after-image after the implosion.  The old image of the powerful and dangerous Church of Scientology has been shattered by David Miscavige's recent stupid, immature and idiotic orders to his mindless followers.  It's a bad joke.

Is the fate of Scientology itself, hanging in the balance?  Again, nope.  All the facts and all the failures of Hubbard and Scientology are well known.   Scientology doesn't produce "homo novis", it doesn't solve any of the world's problems and it isn't a miraculous solution to anything.  People may still use Scientology but, since Scientology doesn't produce anything significant, its continued existence is of no importance.

So we have people of no particular importance battling over an insignificant "church" and an ineffective "tech" with nothing of any significance hanging in the balance.

I've walked out of better movies than this.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on August 26, 2011, 09:03:54 AM
Sunday, August 21, 2011
                                        Who Will Lead the "Independents"?

    Grown men do not need leaders.
                                                            Edward Abbey

Anyone who has read much in this blog will already know that I'm no longer a True Believer of Scientology.  If they have been paying attention, they would also realize that I am not, in actual fact, anti-Scientology (specifically, the belief system) either.

I think that some of Scientology can provide benefit to some people.  If a person wants to practice Scientology (and if they can avoid the abuses and fraud that Scientology seems to engender), then they should be allowed to do so.

Also, readers of this blog will know that I consider the Church of Scientology, and its leaders, to be criminal and fraudulent.

But now we have the self-named "Independents" who appear to want to reconstitute the Church of Scientology in a "reformed" version.  They want an organization.  They want a leader.

OK, so looking at this from the viewpoint of a Scientologist, how could one go about picking a good leader for Scientology?

Scientologists have a limited but lousy record in their choice of leaders -- specifically David Miscavige.  So far, they've "chosen" their leader by accepting whoever declared themselves leader.  To put it bluntly: They have been sheep.

If we pretend they have a choice and they have the will and power to choose their own leader, what qualifications should they look for in their new leader?

Let's try to be serious here and list what a sane group of Scientologists would see as important qualifications for their leader, shall we?  If I were a True Believer and if I were selecting a leader, I would want:

    Someone who was personally trained by L. Ron Hubbard or, if no one was available, then someone who was directly trained by such a person.
    Someone who has successfully completed all training and processing with excellent results and who has not been indoctrinated in any of Miscavige's "altered tech".
    Someone who has successfully run a mission, an org and a Scientology "Continent" (group of churches/missions in one geographic area).
    Someone who has a track record of successfully running a business in the real world.
    Someone who has always fought David Miscavige and upheld "Standard Scientology" against Miscavige's rewrites, edits and corruption.
    Someone who has never allowed or participated in any of the Church of Scientology's crimes, abuses or corruption.

Even with these qualifications, I see Scientology as doomed unless their new leader also is:

    Someone who explicitly repudiates and rejects any and all Scientology policy that promotes the Scientology abuses, crimes, lies and fraud -- including disconnection, "Enemy" lists, "fair game" and all such anti-social policies.
    Someone who acknowledges the crimes, abuses, lies and fraud committed previously by Scientology -- even those ordered or condoned by L. Ron Hubbard himself.

Not surprisingly, there do not appear to be any aspirants to leadership in the "Independents" movement who meet the criteria 1-6 and certainly none who meet the last two points.

Of course, these would be my criteria if I were a Scientologist and, before the "Independents" get their knickers in a twist, I would never tell them what to do.  Besides, there is no indication that any of these are actually desirable to the "Independents".

No, this is just an exercise in logical thinking.  I actually expect the "Independents" to use their previous method of choosing their leader: Don't look at a person's track record, don't look at what they've actually done, just accept whoever wants it the most and who says the correct-sounding things.  After all, that worked so well in the past.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on August 31, 2011, 01:11:31 PM
Sunday, August 28, 2011
                                      Scientology "Betrayal"

I was having a conversation with a Scientology troll the other day.  Well, I was trying to have a conversation, but the troll wasn't able to handle that and ended up just ranting insane gibberish.

However, something the troll said struck me.  This Scientologist was insisting that the ex-Scientologist whistle-blowers had "betrayed Scientology".  And, because of this "betrayal" the Church of Scientology was "justified" in its very vicious, unethical and illegal attacks against them.

"Betrayed?" Really? That's pretty harsh.  What, exactly, did the whistle-blowers actually do?

They told the truth.

The fact that stories of abuse and lies are totally true was confirmed by the Church of Scientology itself in the Headley trials.  The significance of the trials was summarized quite nicely in the article on Scientology wins legal victory, loses public image war.

So, in spite of the fact that the whistle-blowers told the truth, they had, according to the Church of Scientology, betrayed the church!

This sounded familiar.  Where had I heard something like that before?

A little research and I found this:

    The Blue Code of Silence (also known as the "Blue Shield") is an unwritten rule among police officers in the United States not to report on another colleague's errors, misconducts or crimes.  If questioned about an incident of misconduct involving another officer (e.g. during the course of an official inquiry), while following the Blue Code of Silence, the officer being questioned would claim ignorance of another officer's wrongdoing. [Wikipedia]

That's close, but not exactly it.

Then I found an even closer match:

    Omertà is the mafia code of silence and secrecy that forbids mafiosi from betraying their comrades to the authorities. The penalty for transgression is death, and relatives of the turncoat may also be murdered.  For instance, a mafioso will not call the police when he is a victim of a crime. He is expected to take care of the problem himself. [Wikipedia]

There it is!  That's what the Scientology troll was talking about.  That is Scientology's definition of "betrayal".

Compare the above definition of omertà with the following excepts from Introduction to Scientology Ethics under the "High Crimes" section.  ("High Crimes" are the very, very worst crimes in Scientology):

    It is a high crime if a Scientologist does:

        "Public disavowal of Scientology"
        "Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists"
        "Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology"
        "Bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist"
        "Writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist data to the press."
        "Delivering up the person of a Scientologist ... to the demands of civil or criminal law."

Note that absolutely none of these "High Crimes" say anything about whether the accusations against Scientology or a Scientologist are true or not.  Scientologists may not report any crimes by other Scientologists to the police.

Scientologists are required to handle it all internally, within the church.

"But," you are asking, "what if the church doesn't handle it?  What if it is the leaders of the Church of Scientology who are committing the crimes and abuse?  What if the Church of Scientology blames you for being a 'victim' and punishes you and lets the perpetrator go unpunished?"

Makes no difference.  Scientologists may not report any crimes by other Scientologists to the police.

Take a look at these ex-Scientologists committing "High Crimes" by reporting Jan Eastgate (Senior Scientologist and President of CCHR) for covering up child abuse.  Yes, according to the Church of Scientology, Jan Eastgate is a "good Scientologist" and those who reported her crimes have "betrayed Scientology".

Does this sound like omertà?  Does this sound like a criminal organization "protecting its own"?

Time and time again, the Church of Scientology protects the criminals within its organization and attacks the whistle-blowers.

No matter how evil and corrupt a Scientologist is, you may not report him or her to the police.  Ever.  You may not sue them.  You may not speak of their crimes to the press.  You must remain silent or you will "betray" the Church of Scientology and they will viciously attack you and they will try to destroy you.  Just like the Mafia.

This is Scientology.  This is exactly how L. Ron Hubbard designed it.  This is exactly how David Miscavige runs it.  This is "Standard Scientology", straight out of Introduction to Scientology Ethics.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on September 13, 2011, 12:21:20 AM
Wednesday, September 7, 2011

"Inside Scientology" by Janet Reitman

I do apologize for coming late to this.  I wanted to read this book when it first came out but I was in the middle of a couple of very large projects.  Now that they are successfully completed, I've finally had time to read this wonderful book.

If anyone has not yet read this book and, if they have any interest at all in Scientology and the Church of Scientology, I highly recommend it.

In her Introduction, Ms. Reitman says:

    It has been my goal to write the first objective modern history of the Church of Scientology.

To say that Ms. Reitman succeeded would be an understatement.  I, personally, could not have done that -- as an ex-Scientologist, I am definitely not objective about Scientology.   Most people who have been touched in any way by Scientology cannot be objective about it.  Scientology is a completely black and white belief system -- there is no grey.  You are either completely pro-Scientology or you are an Enemy.  Those who become opposed to the Church of Scientology often, in reaction to Scientology's absolutism, take an opposite, and just as absolute, negative position.  It's hard not to.

Yet, without a doubt, Ms. Reitman has produced an objective book.  Since I know she too was attacked by the Church of Scientology for her earlier piece in The Rolling Stone, my admiration for her journalistic integrity is boundless.

But don't let the term "objective" mislead you.  This is not a dry dissertation, it is not boring and it doesn't indulge in that false "journalistically neutral" rhetoric.  You will get the facts surrounding the real events -- untouched by the Church of Scientology's spin, cover-up and lies.

Scientology is, ultimately, about people and Ms. Reitman brings the story of Scientology alive by bringing alive the people who have been involved in Scientology -- from L. Ron Hubbard, struggling to find his path to fame, to those who have struggled in and out of the church, to the latest wide-eyed, ever-hopeful new Scientologist.  This is a book about how people were changed by Scientology -- and how Scientology has been changed by people.

I found it a bit disturbing to read this long history of Scientology from L. Ron Hubbard's troubled life, through the heady early days of hope and excitement and finally to the logical conclusion of Hubbard's paranoia and greed.  It was disturbing because it was true.  It stirred up memories of my own hopes -- and my own disappointments.

In case you might want to question how very thoroughly and diligently Ms. Reitman has researched and fact-checked the stories in this book, her extensive Notes section detailing the exact sources for each chapter is beyond impressive.  This section alone makes the Church of Scientology's cries of "sloppy journalism" completely laughable.

All-in-all, this book was a great read, enlightening, fascinating, informative and with the ring of truth in every page.  This book is now at the top of my list for anyone interested in Scientology and I would highly recommend this book for anyone currently in or recently out of Scientology.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on September 20, 2011, 09:58:50 AM
   Sunday, September 18, 2011

                    Scientology and the Amazing Psychiatric Conspiracy

My attention was drawn to Scientology's Amazing Psychiatric Conspiracy recently.   As a Scientologist, I had just accepted it.  As an ex-Scientologist, I had simply rejected it -- but I really hadn't thought about it.

Scientologists have been indoctrinated into a complete, fanatic hatred of all psychiatrists.  They have concocted a whole raft of "reasons why" they hate psychiatrists but those reasons don't really explain Scientologists' extreme, compulsive and absolute hatred.

They originally pointed to a number of reported abuses by psychiatrists and even created "Psych Busters" who would go out and dig up proof and have such psychiatrists put in prison.  I've noticed that they've quit that and it appears that, ironically, they quit it because they were cleaning up the profession and giving psychiatry a good name.

Then CCHR started rewriting history so that psychiatry was behind every evil that has ever existed on Earth.  Psychiatrists, in some mysterious way, have been behind every war, every mass murderer and every other horrible event.  Evidence was lacking -- you had to just believe.

That hasn't been persuasive except for the gullible who don't check facts.

The latest "reason" is that psychiatrists are "over-prescribing dangerous drugs for children!"

That's actually a good reason to hate those who over-prescribe dangerous drugs, but doesn't hold up as a reason for extreme hatred of all psychiatrists.  After all, medical doctors are just as guilty, the psychiatric profession itself has condemned the practice and many doctors in both professions are not guilty of that at all.

And yet, Scientologists condemn ALL psychiatrists, the guilty and the innocent, and demand that the practice of psychiatry be banned.

I've asked Scientologists, "Given that some Scientologists are guilty of crimes and abuses, should we condemn ALL Scientologists and demand the practice of Scientology be banned?"  But they don't get the point.

Why don't they get the point?  Why are they unable to think logically and rationally on this subject?

Well, as you undoubtedly know, Scientologists believe that psychiatrists are the leaders of the Great Evil Galactic Conspiracy against L. Ron Hubbard and the Loyal Officers.

We all know that and we laugh and laugh.  But think about what that actually means for Scientologists.  For such a conspiracy to be true, for all psychiatrists to be part of such a conspiracy, the following must be true:

    All psychiatrists are in on this Great Evil Galactic Conspiracy.  Every single one.  That's what Hubbard said and that's what Scientologists are required to believe.
    This means that all psychiatrists can remember their "past lives" when they were battling the Forces of Good all over the galaxy.  You can't remember your past life.  Scientologists may pretend but they can't remember their past lives either.  But all psychiatrists must be able to so they know they must grow up and become psychiatrists, right?
    In addition, obviously, no "normal" person can be allowed to become a psychiatrist.  Apparently there is a review board in every psychiatric school that checks every applicant to ensure they are a card-carrying member of the Great Evil Galactic Conspiracy.  Anyone who isn't a member is rejected and cannot become a psychiatrist.
    And finally, psychiatrists, apparently, have extremely advanced communication technology so they can discuss their Evil Plans without ever being detected.  Otherwise they would be some evidence somewhere.

Scientologists seem to believe that we have Evil Alien Beings living among us.  They have phenomenal memory and technology.  And only Scientologists stand between all these Evil Alien Beings and their conquest of Earth.

This is what Scientologists have to believe or their Evil Galactic Conspiracy led by psychiatrists doesn't stand up to the briefest of thought.

It's another fine example of Scientology Logic™ in action.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on November 14, 2011, 11:24:11 AM
Anonymous said...

    If one was to liken the "The church of Scientology" vs it`s opponents to a war, and you were the General of the opponents....
    What would your orders be to your army ?
    What strategies would you implement to force Scientology to close its doors for business as soon as possible ?

    There is no right or wrong answer...

    Just want someone with your obvious intellect and experience to give some guidance to the masses.

    November 6, 2011 8:01 PM

Just Bill said...


    Re: Closing the doors of Scientology

    In a very real way, we've all done that already. I understand some of their doors are still open, but they really are no longer in business.

    They are only "making money" by feeding off their most loyal (and wealthy) members. They are not expanding, they have virtually no new members, all their "thousands" of groups and missions have disappeared and even their "ideal orgs" are being foreclosed on.

    No business can survive in these self-imposed conditions.

    What is and has been done to bring the crimes, abuse, lies and fraud of the Church of Scientology to an end have been extremely effective. I'd tell anyone who cares to listen: Continue what you're doing.

    If Australia mandates fair wages for Scientology staff, if the IRS takes an honest new look at Scientology's "religious activities", if Great Britain and other countries take a look at the tax fraud scam linked to the Australian Church of Scientology... if those things come to fruition, we will see Church of Scientology doors closing quickly.

    But, even without that, the Church of Scientology is done, toast, defunct. Zombie. It's just a matter of time before David Miscavige takes all the money and escapes to a country with no extradition.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on January 06, 2012, 06:44:29 PM
Sunday, January 1, 2012
                                                   Happy New Year 2012

It has been a considerable time since I posted any significant article.  It isn't that nothing was going on, obviously, but it was, instead, a combination of too much going on for me personally (good things) and things going incredibly well in exposing the crimes, lies, abuse and fraud of the Church of Scientology.

All I could say was "Well done!"

But, here it is, a new year and I had in mind doing a pretty ordinary look back and then make predictions.  It's fun to do.

But there is a new and significant event that just happened which changed my plans for what would probably have been a predictable and boring article.

I am, of course, referring to the Debbie Cook email.

This is significant.  While it is true that Scientologists "in good standing" have been talking with each other about some of the problems and it is true that prominent Scientologists have spoken out after leaving the church, there has never been a prominent Scientologist speaking out while still, technically, "in good standing".

This email went to a lot of well connected Scientologists who have no reason to doubt that Debbie Cook is still in good standing.

Let's take a look at what Debbie says.  She is not attacking Scientology or Hubbard in any way.  She uses the line "The truth is that as a Scientologist you are more able, more perceptive and have a higher integrity" to appeal to the Scientology ego.  While she names David Miscavige, she doesn't personally attack him (i.e. call him "suppressive").  She quotes Hubbard appropriately to make her points.  While lengthy, her email does not get bogged down in too much detail as so many other "doubt formulas" have.  She has done a good job talking to Scientologists in their terms.

I believe this will be effective.  I'm guessing that speaking freely about everything Debbie has brought up will become common within Scientology.  That is all to the good.

I read a concerned comment by someone to the effect that we don't want Scientologists to rebel and reform Scientology as Debbie urges.  We want, the commenter insists, the church to continue to abuse and defraud Scientologists in order to speed up its collapse.

I'd say that this email will greatly speed up the church's collapse.  First, Debbie urges all Scientologists to stop sending any money to the church except for donations for services -- which monies remain (mostly) local.  This cuts off Miscavige's lucrative income from all his bogus fundraising tricks.

But wait!  By pointing out all the "out-tech" now being enforced by the church, she is discouraging Scientologists from actually taking services.

And, finally, by detailing the total destruction of the upper management of the church, Debbie is making it perfectly "legal" to ignore the dictates coming from "management".

    UPDATE: I see some speculation as to why Debbie emphasized that she hasn't spoken to the media and then says "Please keep this email among us, the Scientologists. The media have no place in this" when she must know it would be quickly spread everywhere.

    I assume this has to do with her gag agreement with the Church of Scientology when she left the Sea Org.  She is, undoubtedly, forbidden from talking to the media.  By saying what she says, she is abiding by the agreement.  If others ignore her request and spread it about, it's not her fault.

If this doesn't cause a majority of the remaining churchies to disassociate from the Church of Scientology, I'll be very surprised.

They may remain True Believers, and they may then be captured by the Independent Movement, but that group is not organized and is not effective.

And remember this:  True Believers must use Scientology and only Scientology for all their endeavors.  They must use the Admin and Ethics "tech".  The built-in flaws in all of that ensure that any future Scientology organization will not succeed.

This certainly is a good way to start a New Year.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on January 08, 2012, 08:46:24 AM
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Scientology's Peril Sensitive Sunglasses

    He... put on the sunglasses, annoyed to discover that the metal object had scratched one of the lenses. Nevertheless, he felt much more comfortable with them on. They were a double pair of Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, which had been specially designed to help people develop a relaxed attitude toward danger. At the first hint of trouble they turn totally black and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might alarm you.
    From The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams.

I must admit that I am a fan of Douglas Adams.  I find his very quirky British humor refreshing and delightful.  The above is a sample of his type of humor: Sunglasses that "help" you when danger looms by becoming completely opaque.

Ridiculous! Absurd! Hilarious!

Such an object makes no sense and would never exist.

Unless you are a Scientologist.

Danger is certainly looming for all Scientologists.  Every year, every month, heck, every day it seems like, there is more bad news for the Church of Scientology.  Secret documents are leaked; crimes are exposed in detail with lots of confirmation; lies are debunked; abuses documented.  It just doesn't stop.

It used to be somewhat obscure websites only visited by the few.  Today it is major media -- newspapers, magazines, television, radio and books by major publishers.  Scientologists are leaving the church and telling their stories.

It just doesn't stop.  Danger looms from every side.

And this is where Scientology's Peril Sensitive Sunglasses kick in.  You can't see them but every Scientologist has a trusty pair firmly clamped on their faces.  These sunglasses have been installed over many months and years of Scientology indoctrination.

When danger looms and Scientology is in peril, Scientologists' minds go opaque.  They cannot and do not read.  They cannot and do not look.  They cannot and do not think.

Then they are safe.  Totally safe.  They look, childlike, at David Miscavige, who tells them "Everything is OK!  Scientology is expanding!  Scientology is winning!"

And the Scientologists, with their Scientology Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, set to totally black, can relax.

All is OK.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on February 05, 2012, 06:33:59 PM
Saturday, February 4, 2012
                                              Laughing at Scientology

We really have entered into a new stage in the fight against the Church of Scientology's crimes, abuse and fraud.

For the most part, previous exposure of the church's evil has been brought about by outsiders -- ex-Scientologists, reporters, critics and various victims.  Marty and the Independents have been exposing carefully selected abuses (making sure that nothing is exposed that might reflect badly on L. Ron Hubbard himself) but they are, by their own statements, outsiders to the church.

With Debbie Cook's email and subsequent reactions, we have exposure of abuses coming from inside the church.  The battle is now also between the Church of Scientology leadership and people who still consider themselves members of the church.

In addition, there are, today, a number of other very serious actions going on.  There are serious books about Scientology, serious newspaper, TV and magazine exposés about Scientology and other serious court cases involving the church.

All this is good and necessary to the exposure of the Church of Scientology's crimes and eventual bringing to justice of David Miscavige and other Scientology criminals.  Pop the popcorn and pull up a chair, this show is getting very interesting.

But I don't think we should take any particular event too seriously.  No one court case is that important.  Inevitably, the church will still win some while it loses others.  It will be the mass of exposure and court losses for the church that count.  Bit by bit the crimes and abuses are being exposed and documented.  Things proven in court cannot be "unproven".

However, speaking of all this serious business reminds me: Let us not forget what was key in helping destroy the myth of the "great and powerful" Church of Scientology -- laughter!

It was, more than anything else, Anonymous and their monthly protest-parties that destroyed the Church of Scientology's mythical shield that protected them for so long.  It was Anonymous that showed us that the church had no answer to laughter, happiness and fun.

Certainly, the seriousness is important in the court and in well-researched book, newspaper or TV exposés -- but if we become too serious, we will have abandoned our best weapon against the Church of Scientology and David Miscavige.

Happily, the irrepressible Tony Ortega at the Village Voice and a few others continue the tradition of laughing at Miscavige, Hubbard and the Church of Scientology.  And, yes, some Anonymous are still protesting.  With all this seriousness going on, we shouldn't forget to also keep laughing -- it's good for the soul and bad for the church.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on April 05, 2012, 05:16:46 PM
Sunday, April 1, 2012
                                           Scientology in the Real World

Recently, I've just been watching.  Scientology watching has become one of my entertainments.  There's David Miscavige and the Church of Scientology, there's all the secrets, lies, crimes, abuses and fraud getting almost daily exposure and then there is the "Independent Scientology movement".

I find the Independent Scientologists to be the most fascinating.  Here we have a perfect test of Scientology's workability unfolding right before our eyes.  How can Scientology exist outside of the tightly controlled environment of the cult?

Enough time has passed for us to be able to see what Scientology is going to be like in a free and open environment.

Inside the Church of Scientology, the environment is very, very tightly controlled -- exactly as L. Ron Hubbard designed it to be.  Anything negative about Hubbard or Scientology is condemned as "entheta" and is off limits.   As a "good Scientologist", one cannot and will not talk to people who speak entheta.  One cannot read entheta articles or listen to any entheta.  That is thought control and is one of the cult's mechanisms for keeping the True Believers from straying from the approved path.

But now we have the Independent Scientology movement.  They have much, much less control.  If you talk to the "wrong people" according to one Scientology practitioner -- who then refuses to audit you (because you are a "bad person") -- why you can just go elsewhere.

The leaders of the Independent movement do not have enough control to stop a Scientologist from talking to anyone or reading anything.

And now we can see what happens to Scientology when the cultic thought control has been removed and when the standard threats have no weight.  Can Scientology survive in a free environment?

Well, what is happening?

If you've perused the various Independent Scientology blogs, you will see Scientologists desperately attempting to enforce the old thought control.  Any disagreement or entheta posted on one of their blogs gets shouted down or simply blocked.  Many posts and comments on ESMB and Censored by Marty attest to the censoring that goes on at that blog.

The people running the blogs try to keep the movement clean of such entheta but, as I said earlier, they simply don't have the power to enforce it.

Scientologists outside of the church can read and can talk without fear of any meaningful punishment.  Any normal person will absolutely hate and rebel against the kind of totalitarian thought-control as practiced by Scientology.  You can't stop people from wanting to know more, to know the truth.  And so people will look.

The more the leading voices of the Independent Scientology movement try to suppress other voices and dissenting opinions, the more people will resist.  And rebel.  And look.

That is happening more and more.

What has happened as a result of all this?  How is the Independent Scientology movement doing without the ability to control believer's thoughts, communication and actions?

As near as I can tell, back in very early 2010, Marty Rathbun and Steve Hall had this "bright idea".  They called it the "Indie 500".  The idea was to get 500 Independent Scientologists to "come out" and declare their independence from the Church of Scientology.  The website's definition of exactly who was an "Independent Scientologist" was extremely broad: "Anyone who uses any part of Scientology Tech, even if other parts are not true for you."

Now, over two years later, the list stands at a little over 300.  It is obvious to me that someone created the original few hundred entries without getting approval from the people they were listing: In reading through the list, I see a number who do not now consider themselves "Scientologists" in any way.  In addition, I know of more who's names appeared on the list and asked them to be removed.

After two years, even with those false entries, the Independent Scientology movement can't find 500 people who use "any part of Scientology Tech" who want to be associated with the movement.  Why?  Certainly many, many more than 500 people have left the Church of Scientology.

The reason that Scientology outside of the totalitarian control of the Church of Scientology cannot and will never thrive is because Scientology cannot coexist with open communication.  Scientology cannot coexist with full access to all the information.  Scientology cannot exist without its cultic thought-control.

My only question is: Can any part of Scientology exist in an open and free environment?  I certainly don't know, only time will tell.

What do you think?  If you are out of the church, what is your experience with the Independent Movement?
Posted by Just Bill at 1:00 PM Labels: Independent Scientology, Thought Control

    AnonymousApr 1, 2012 03:55 PM

    Bill, what do you think of Marty R's recent posts where he seems to agree that Hubbard lied about his past, or at least that Hubbard's storytelling does not need to be taken literally? Is this his attempt to salvage the "tech," while jettisoning the extreme dogmatism and thought control?
        Just BillApr 1, 2012 05:28 PM

        Everyone who leaves the Church of Scientology has to go through certain stages -- or reject the Real World entirely. This is one of the stages and a very early one. "Yes, apparently Hubbard didn't always tell the truth about his life but..."

        And following that "but ..." are all the reasons why the Scientologist is still clinging to the rest of the whole belief structure: "but it was meant as a metaphor", "but he was joking", "but his technology still works", and so on.

        It's an early step away from "Ron was perfect and created a perfect technology". There are more steps to go before the Scientologist accepts the truth of it all.


Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on April 19, 2012, 05:25:09 PM
Sunday, April 15, 2012

The recent announcement from "Emma" of Ex-Scientology Message Board that, after October, she is no longer going to run the message board, has gotten me thinking about those on the front lines.

First, I think this is a very good thing for Emma to do.  God! What an incredible job she has done over the years maintaining some control over that herd of cats while under continuous attack from the Church of Scientology.  In 2010, when the church uncovered her real name, the attacks got considerably worse with bogus legal actions.  Then, as if that wasn't hard enough, recently, her mother passed away.

Emma's message board has helped thousands, probably tens of thousands, of people recover from Scientology's thought control and abuse.  Her board has been read by millions.  She is awesome.  And, while she will be greatly missed,  there comes a time when a fighter should retire -- undefeated and victorious, for sure -- but enough is enough.

At its core, the Church of Scientology is evil, degraded, abusive and destructive.  Those who help people escape from, and recover from, Scientology's abuses and thought control methods and who work to expose the crimes and abuse, are directly connected to this evil.  How much can a person take of such evil?  How much should a person put up with before they back off and someone else takes their place?

It is amazing to me that one single person can do so much against everything the insane, wealthy Church of Scientology can throw at them.  Emma is not the only such person, and they all deserve our gratitude, our thanks and our admiration.  The ability of these single individuals to defeat the Church of Scientology shows how decency, goodness and truth can defeat evil.

And don't doubt we all have defeated the Church of Scientology -- especially folks like Emma who have borne the brunt of Scientology's attacks.

Today, Scientology's secrets are all well-known.  Today, Hubbard is known in the real world for exactly what he was.  Today, Scientology has very few adherents and virtually no new recruits.  Today, every Scientology "church" is empty and struggling -- or closed.

Yes, Scientology's few remaining, hard-core believers are still fighting, lying, abusing and attacking but their teeth have been pulled.  For the most part, police and the courts recognize their lies and quickly shut down their bogus, desperate attacks.

New allies are showing up to see that Scientology's lies, abuse, crimes and fraud are exposed and the guilty are brought to justice.  The opposition to the Church of Scientology actually grows daily.

So, some of the fighters are taking a well-earned break.  Some of the blogs and message boards are quieter now, like this one, or even dormant, like Leaving Scientology.  These fighters have earned a respite from the front lines.  Don't worry, there are lots and lots of fighters on the job, and more to come.

Those fighters who are withdrawing from the front lines do so as victors and those who take over the fight are grateful and thankful.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on October 12, 2012, 04:13:58 PM
Friday, October 5, 2012 

                                                     Ask a Question

I’m a bit late on a new Ask a Question.  I’ve found that some browsers don’t work too well with Blogger once the comments have gone past 200 and you have to go to another page.  On some browsers, you just can’t get to the next page.  So, here is another Ask a Question thread.

There are some really great questions and discussions in Ask a Question 1, 2, 3, 4 and the one just before this one 5.  I always enjoy going back and reading them.

You want to know something about Scientology or the Church of Scientology?  Ask here!  You have a suggestion?  Put it here.  You want to start an argument or discussion?  Here is the place.  All non-troll, non-spam comments, suggestions, arguments, corrections are greatly appreciated.

Current Scientologist's contributions are, as always, very welcome.  Trust me, I don't bite.

As always, I love to hear from you.
Posted by Just Bill

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on October 26, 2012, 02:29:42 PM
Sunday, October 21, 2012

                                               Scientology: It's All About Threats and Fear

As the implosion of the Church of Scientology continues, I have had more contact with newly-out Scientologists than ever before.  And I have noticed that one of the common characteristics of newly-out Scientologists is fear.

This isn't just fear of what the church will do to them because they just left, it is the reaction to living for years under the constant threats, explicit and implicit, from the Church of Scientology. After a while, it just becomes normal to live in fear.

Once Scientology has convinced a person that "Scientology has all the answers" and that "Scientology is the only road to 'Total Freedom'", the church spends the rest of the time threatening to deny the Scientologist that "only road out".  This threat hangs over the head of every Scientologist.  This is the basis of the church's power and control.

(It really is ironic that the Church of Scientology's power comes from the threat to take away that which it never had the power to give in the first place.)

As a Scientologist, you must follow all of the church's rules, requirements, demands and dictates or you will be denied Scientology services.  In the "Introduction to Scientology Ethics" book there is a list of "High Crimes" for which a Scientologist will be declared a  "Suppressive Person", and kicked out.  If you carefully review that list of High Crimes, you will quickly realize that many of these "crimes" are so very, very vague, that anyone could be found guilty of violating them.

And, indeed, many Scientologists are accused and found guilty under these High Crimes when they have done nothing that normal society would consider wrong.

Usually, a Scientologist is "declared suppressive" as a result of something Hubbard made up called a "Committee of Evidence" (or "CommEv").  A CommEv is an amazing bit of Hubbard-created injustice:

    The "Convening Authority" who calls for the CommEv is the same person who wants you found guilty.
    The Convening Authority gets to choose whoever he or she wants for the "members" of the CommEv who will sit in judgement of you.  Anyone.
    The Convening Authority writes the charges and the Scientologist is, pretty much, presumed guilty unless he or she can produce convincing evidence of innocence on every point.
    There are no rules of evidence -- anything can be used as "evidence" against the accused and it is up to the committee members to accept or reject evidence on whatever basis they choose.  No one is required to verify that the "evidence" is actually valid.
    The accused may not have a lawyer or any other assistance in defending him or herself.
    There is no stipulation that the accused can see the evidence or the accusers and challenge them.
    The accused is not required to be present during testimony against him or her and, in fact, is often deliberately excluded.  These days, the entire CommEv is often held without the accused even being present.

As you can tell from all this, if the Convening Authority wants you declared suppressive, that's pretty much exactly what's going to happen.

And the punishments for being found guilty can be severe.  If one is "declared suppressive" and kicked out, all other Scientologists are required to disconnect from the "suppressive".  This can result in divorce, total separation from family and friends, loss of one's job and more.  As Scientologists usually associate with, work with and work for other Scientologists, such disconnection can be devastating.

But there is more.  According to Hubbard, someone "declared suppressive" may be "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed".  The laws, morals and ethics of normal society no longer protect the declared person from all manner of attacks from other Scientologists.

If one desires to "work oneself back into good standing", the road is long and degrading and the chances of being declared again are pretty high.

Under Scientology "Ethics", all Scientologists are required to spy on all other Scientologists and report any "incorrect" behavior.  If another Scientologist they know is found to be "suppressive", it is likely that they, too, will be punished for "not reporting the crimes".  Therefore, many Scientologists do spy and do report on other Scientologists.

Even in the supposedly "confidential" auditing sessions, Scientologists are not safe from the spying eyes of the church.  Everything they say is written down and often recorded, to be reviewed by others.  At any time, the Scientologist could be ordered to a "Security Check" or "SecCheck" where everything they say will be reported to the "Ethics Officer" for evaluation and, perhaps, punishment.  There are few Scientologists who have not felt the dread upon hearing the phrase "Report to Ethics".

As you can see, if a Scientologist lives in almost constant fear, they have every reason to feel that way.

And don't doubt for an instant that the church fully understands the power that it holds over all Scientologists.  Scientologists believe that Scientology is the only way to rise to the higher levels of existence and if they are kicked out of the church, they will be doomed to horrible suffering and degradation forever.  With this threat of expulsion and disconnection, the Church of Scientology can and does demand more and more.  More money, more time, more participation, more obedience.  For those who believe the church controls their future salvation forever, there is no choice but to comply.

Luckily, the news that the Church of Scientology's power has been broken is filtering in to the believers.  The fear is easing and, with it, the church's power to force obedience is fading.  The church doesn't know what to do about it.  Without this constant fear, they no longer have the same absolute control over their Scientologists.  Oh, dear!

Posted by Just Bill

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on November 21, 2012, 07:31:57 AM
Saturday, November 17, 2012

                                                      Scientology Logic™

I have often sarcastically referred to "Scientology Logic™" when discussing various statements and arguments made by the Church of Scientology and Scientology's true believers.  It is very true that Scientology's version of "logic" is very, very strange, but what you might not know is that Scientology Logic is deliberately built into the Scientology belief system itself by L. Ron Hubbard.

Note that I am not talking here about how logical or illogical Hubbard's actual "technology" is.  I am talking about the actual "logic" mechanisms themselves that exist and are used throughout Scientology.

Note, also, that this "logic" exists inside Scientology and only rarely shows up on the outside.  This is why discussing Scientology with a Scientologist can be so weird.

Technically, Scientology Logic is made up of a number of logical fallacies which Hubbard used extensively in his lectures and writings.
Here is a partial list:

Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is the argument that a person judged to be an authority verifies that the statement is true -- therefore it must be true.

In Scientology's case, the authority is, of course, L. Ron Hubbard.  Scientology claims that all their "solutions" are "highly effective".  What is the basis of their claims?  "Ron said so".

When the raw facts show their "solutions" are failures, it is quickly agreed by all Scientologists involved to cover the failures up, because "Ron said his solutions were highly effective".

They won't look any further for any facts or hard evidence because "they don't need to, Ron said it, so it's true".  This is the absolute, bedrock foundation of Scientology:  If L. Ron Hubbard said it, then it is completely true.

While this theme of "Hubbard's Infallibility" crops up in Hubbard's teachings from the very beginning, it became cast in stone with his infamous "Keeping Scientology Working" (KSW) policy letter.  In that policy, Hubbard denied that anyone else had contributed anything of value to Scientology and that he, and he alone, had created this "miraculous tech" that was "100% workable".  From then on, it became a High Crime for any Scientologist to deny Hubbard's perfection.

In any disagreement between Scientologists, the one who can find the best L. Ron Hubbard quote to support their side is automatically the winner.  No logic is ever applied.

As non-church Scientologists discover how many of Ron's statements have been irrefutably debunked, they struggle to fit that into Scientology's Absolutism.  The most popular approach is to label all of Ron's lies as "allegories, not to be taken literally." This, however, puts them on very shaky ground as more and more of Scientology's "truths" become "allegories".

In an odd and completely bizarre twist to this illogic, some Scientologists will insist that, if L. Ron Hubbard didn't say something, it isn't true.  So, for instance, because Hubbard never talked about the dangers and effects of asbestos, there is no danger or bad effects from breathing asbestos.

Ad Hominem
This logical fallacy attempts to use personal attacks to discredit the source of contrary evidence.

This was, by far, Hubbard's favorite and most effective logical fallacy and has become woven throughout Scientology's belief system.

In Scientology, anyone possessing and disseminating any facts that are contrary to Hubbard's words is automatically "evil".  This is one "truth" that is hammered into Scientologists again and again throughout their studies.

Even in its press releases, the Church of Scientology carefully refers to the Scientology whistle-blowers as "apostates" -- and they do intend all the negative connotations of that word: "traitor", "heretic", "untrustworthy", etc.  The outside Scientologists aren't much better, refering to critics as "haters" and worse.

Because they are labelled "evil" by Scientology, any source of contrary information is automatically "invalid" and any statements coming from that source must be automatically and quickly discarded lest one become "contaminated" by it.

This automatic, built-in ad hominem attack is marvellous to behold.  One "bad" word and the Scientologist immediately shuts down and runs away, never to accept any data from that source again.

Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

In Scientology, this follows directly from both the ad hominem and the appeal to authority fallacies, above.

Hubbard has assured his faithful followers that anyone who dares to criticize him or Scientology is guilty of horrendous crimes "for which they could be arrested." Hubbard even instructed his secret police to dig up or manufacture evidence of crimes on every critic -- and they have done so with enthusiasm.  The church's attempts to frame their critics for crimes they did not commit are quite well documented.

Scientologists completely believe this characterization of Scientology critics.  Given the allegations of such crimes, Scientologists automatically reject all criticisms of Hubbard and Scientology from any source.  No logic required.

In a more generic form, Scientologists pretty much distrust any source that isn't L. Ron Hubbard (or, in the church, David Miscavige).

Straw Man Fallacy
A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted

Scientologists work very hard to pervert and obfuscate the very simple and clear messages that the Scientology critics and whistle-blowers present.

Any criticism of one of Scientology's "solutions" is misrepresented by Scientology as an attempt to halt all efforts to help anyone.  You will often find Scientologists claiming that critics' messages are "No one can be helped" and "All help is bad" -- but no serious Scientology critic ever said that.

Red Herring
The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of sabotaging a fox hunt by using smoked herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry.  It is simply an attempt to distract one from the current subject.

Hubbard famously said, regarding attacks against himself or Scientology, "Make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail. Always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Don't ever defend. Always attack."

Because of this policy, Scientologists work very hard to distract any discussion away from the lies, crimes and abuses of the Church of Scientology and onto anything else.  "Look over there!  Look how bad those other people are, over there!"

This is the primary motivation for the creation of many of Scientology's front groups such as CCHR, "Youth for Human Rights", etc.

As a bonus for Scientology, the general public tends to think that any organization "promoting Human Rights", for instance, is unlikely to be violating those exact same Human Rights.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy
A hasty generalisation draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case.

This is the most common response by a Scientologist when confronted with Scientology's consistent failure to deliver any of its promised results.  Scientologists will inevitably say, "I got wonderful gains from Scientology!" This ignores the primary point that none of these "wonderful gains" were what was actually promised -- or even expected.

This also ignores all the other times when Scientology didn't deliver any "gains" at all to the Scientologist.  It is very much like the compulsive gambler who remembers every time they won some money but ignores the huge amount of money they've lost.

After all that time, all that effort and all that money, instead of the promised miraculous results, the Scientologist once or twice got "wonderful gains" that are only a memory now.  From those few, fleeting moments, the Scientologist makes the very general statement that "Scientology works!"

The situation isn't necessarily that illogical people are drawn to Scientology.   The situation is that bad logic is intrinsic to the core teachings of Scientology and that not enough people are educated so as to recognize this when they run into it.  Once someone has accepted the core teachings of Scientology, they have automatically accepted all of Hubbard's illogics as well.

(Yes, such an education would help people as consumers and as voters.)

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on December 03, 2012, 07:45:10 AM
Sunday, November 25, 2012
                                                          We Are Moving!

I'm totally fed up with Blogger.  It seems to just get worse and worse, month by month.

People are telling me that they can't read my blog, can't post comments and sometimes can't do anything at all.  Even I'm having trouble getting things done.

So, I'm moving Ask the Scientologist over to WordPress.

Unfortunately, some silly True Believer has stolen my preferred URL for Scientology propaganda, so I have to use a different URL.

I'm in the process of moving, so it really isn't fully set up but, for now, I've mirrored all the old articles and comments over there.  You can leave comments there now.

You can still ask questions and leave comments here as well for the time being.

The new address is

I should have it set up the way I want in a week or so.

Thanks to everyone for their patience.


Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on January 16, 2013, 08:21:21 AM
                                                        Happy New Year 2013

Posted on January 15, 2013 by justbill001

I thought I’d follow tradition and make a few predictions for the new year. Here are a couple of things I see happening.

We are all seeing the tremendous flood of articles, programs and books about the Church of Scientology that have come out or will be out shortly. This is quite wonderful — the truth is finally rather broadly and clearly exposed for all to see. It really seems like all the stops are off. While some timid publishing houses are caving to the church’s empty threats, the rest pay the church no mind at all. While I think it’s kind of funny how all the abuses and crimes of the Church of Scientology are now new news when so many people have been screaming about them for decades, still the attention and exposure is all good.

There will be much more coverage this year, including newspaper exposés, more books, more TV reports — and I fully expect the “Corrupt Cult of Scientology” will become a part of TV’s standard plot devices this year.

Nothing issued from the Church of Scientology is getting much coverage. Their “responses” are tired, lame and predictable — filled with all the usual false accusations, lies and disgusting, discreditable extracts from confidential confessional folders.

As a matter of fact, have you noticed that the Church of Scientology really doesn’t seem to be working very hard on their responses? They seem to be going through the rote procedures, sending their standard ton of paperwork, without putting much effort into it. I’ve noticed a trend there. Where the only time they do seem to get energetic is when David Miscavige has been personally accused of crimes and abuses. When it looks to reflect badly on Miscavige, the responses from the church are vicious and ugly. When just the church is accused, the response is more pro-forma without much effort behind it.


I’m sure this trend will continue. I think Miscavige has pretty much given up on “protecting the Church of Scientology”. I think all he cares about is “protecting the image of David Miscavige”. Mind you, he isn’t having much luck with that, but that does seem to be his only real concern.

On a related note, I’ve seen a trend in “Ideal Orgs”. First, that fund-raising engine has lost all its steam. Miscavige has taken just about every penny that Scientologists can beg, borrow or steal and there just ain’t no more. The Ideal Org scam has ground to a virtual halt with many of their “new buildings” sitting vacant, idle and slowly decomposing.

Now, you might think this trend will continue to grow worse and worse — but here is what I see. These abandoned and neglected “Ideal Orgs” will damage Miscavige’s image. He loves to show himself in front of these new buildings at every one of his Big Bogus Events, six times a year. Without that, what does he have to show “unprecedented expansion”?

These events will force Miscavige to open up Scientology’s bank account to prop up the failing orgs and complete some of these failed “Ideal Orgs”. That’s my prediction — probably no more orgs will close and some new Ideal Orgs will open, but only because Miscavige provides the funds from Scientology’s reserves (which he thinks of as “his” money). This will accelerate the inevitable collapse of the church, but Scientology’s façade must be propped up at all costs to protect Miscavige’s image.

While I am tempted to use the same logic to assume that Miscavige will release money to complete and then open the “Super Power building”, I really don’t see that happening. I predict it won’t open this year — or ever. Here is my reasoning: First, he can’t afford it. It will take tons and tons of money to create all that specialized equipment. In addition, just running the building for one day would bankrupt Flag. More, the insurance, permits, for all those bizarre machines would be exorbitant.

But the main reason Miscavige won’t open the Super Power Building is this: As long as it remains “under construction”, he can continue to exhort money from all the true believers to “complete the Super Power building”. However, if he opened it, that money flow will stop. But what’s worse, from his point of view, is that he’d then have to start delivering the promised services to hundreds of people who have already paid for it. This will cost Miscavige another huge fortune. Given all these negatives, why would he ever open it?

Beyond these simple predictions, I’m sure we will see more exposés, more whistle-blowers, more people leaving and, just maybe, more Scientology organizations declaring “independence” from the church.

As for the “Indie” movement, I’m already seeing that fall apart. I expect more of that in the coming year. Without the ability to “declare people suppressive” and force them out of Scientology, there is no power to enforce agreement and compliance. As time goes on, there will just be more and more disagreements.

The problem with independent Scientology is, ultimately, the same problem with the original Scientology: It doesn’t deliver what is promised — it can’t. It will continue to decline, just as the church will continue to decline.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on March 04, 2013, 09:52:24 PM

                                        Scientologists: What, exactly, “works”?

Posted on February 23, 2013 by justbill001

One of the things that Scientologists do that is so very confusing, is their insistence that “Scientology works!”

Even after leaving the Church of Scientology in disgust, a few people continue to believe and insist that Scientology works.  This results in such movements as the “Independent Scientologists”, the “Freezone”, “Ron’s Orgs” and such.

Yet, if you can convince these people to talk openly about it, they must all admit that “Clear”, as promised by L. Ron Hubbard, has never been achieved.  Instead, they may redefine “Clear” from “no longer has a Reactive Mind” to “I once felt really, really good for a short time and attributed it to Scientology”.

If they are being honest, they also will admit that “OT”, as promised by Hubbard, has also never been achieved.  They may redefine “OT” from “cause over matter, energy, space and time” to “I once felt really, really good for a short time and attributed it to an ‘OT’ level”.

In other words, they know that Scientology does not deliver what was explicitly promised by Hubbard — and yet they will insist that “Scientology works!”  How can they say this?

As I see it, these people are confusing “It does something” with “It works”.  It is obvious that, for some people, Scientology processes definitely do something.  Some temporary effect has been created on them.

But that doesn’t mean “Scientology works“.

Let’s use an example outside of Scientology to see the difference between “it works” and “it does something”.  I’ve lived in a number of old houses, and there seems to always be that one light switch you can’t figure out what it does.  Let’s say the switch is labelled “backyard light”, but it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with that.  It doesn’t work.

But what if, sometimes, when you flip that switch, the kitchen faucet started to drip badly?  What if, at other times, you flip that switch and your cell phone reception in the house gets a lot better?  Well, it sure seems that the switch “does something” — but it still doesn’t work.

These are the kind of “results” that Scientology provides — mostly nothing, sometimes something nice and sometimes something not nice.  It is the “sometimes something nice” that Scientologists remember when they say “It works!”

But, what does “it works” actually mean in the real world?  It means something does what it is supposed to do when it’s supposed to.

Scientology is supposed to bring you up “levels” of greater and greater abilities and powers until you reach “OT”, the “Upper End of The Bridge”.  But it doesn’t.  Scientologists at the “Upper End of The Bridge” have no more abilities or powers than non-Scientologists.

Scientologists hate it when this is pointed out but they can’t deny it.  According to Scientology’s mythos, Scientologists will all be leaders in their fields.  The truth is that none of them are.  The irony is that some of those who may have been leaders in their field before Scientology, no longer are.

In the real world, “it works” means that it, whatever “it” is, produces the intended effect reliably, consistently and predictably.

Predictable: The expected results are known. In Scientology, Scientology’s expected results are enshrined in Hubbard’s “Grade Chart”.  It is in this document that Hubbard makes his miraculous promises for Scientology.  This is what Scientology is supposed to do, although, you’d be hard-pressed to say these promised results are expected by Scientologists today.

Consistent: The expected results happens every time it is run.  In Scientology, this doesn’t happen, ever.  The abilities promised by Hubbard simply don’t happen.  The fact that, for some people, something else happens, does not have any meaning here.  In Scientology, the expected, promised results don’t happen.

Reliable: Unwanted effects don’t happen.  While not talked about much, unwanted effects do happen in Scientology.  In Scientology, it could be said that the unexpected “nice” results and the unwanted “bad” results are equally likely to happen. But the most likely result from any Scientology process is: Nothing much.

So, when a Scientologist says “Scientology works!” they are really only saying “I had something nice happen to me once or twice in Scientology.”  Using Hubbard’s definitions, there are no “Releases”, no “Clears” and no “OTs”.  Scientology often “does something” but — it doesn’t work.

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on May 18, 2013, 08:37:46 AM
                                    Scientology Hides in Portland

Posted on May 11, 2013   by justbill001

[Guest post from Arthur who was in Portland for the "Grand Opening".]

I dropped by the “Grand Opening” of Scientology’s latest “Ideal Org” in Portland, Oregon.  It was nothing much.  I guess that’s typical of these events.  Only a couple of hundred Scientologists showed up.

As much as it was nothing much, a few things struck me about the event and how Scientology “welcomed itself” into the community.

The overwhelming image and attitude of Scientology in that neighborhood and in that community was,  “We don’t like you, we don’t trust you.  Keep out.”  There were tons of security all over the place plus rented off-duty police.  The police were polite, the Scientologists were most definitely not.  At one point I saw one Scientology “security” person hassling a non-uniformed Scientology security person because he didn’t recognize him.  That was funny.

If you were not a known Scientologist, you were most unwelcome.  Even if you were just curious and only wanted to know what was going on — you were not welcome.

As Bill likes to say, compare Scientology with how a normal organization or a normal church would carry out their Grand Opening.  The whole community would be invited.  Everyone would be welcome.  A normal organization or church would want everyone to show up, participate and feel welcome.

Scientology demands that “All you people stay the hell out of our building.”

And that is why these “Grand Openings”, and all the empty days following them, are such failures.  If you welcome yourself “into the community” by erecting barricades, keeping the community out and harassing those who are curious, you are sending a message that the community is not welcome at the Church of Scientology.  And it’s true!  Go to any Scientology organization and see what their attitude is.   It is, “We don’t like you, we don’t trust you.  If you try hard, you might be welcome here, but we doubt it.”

It’s called a “Bunker Mentality”.  (It has nothing to do with Mark Bunker — a “bunker” is a fortified place to hide.)  That’s Scientology in a nutshell.

You could blame it all on Anonymous, making the problems of Scientology so visible — and that’s true in a superficial way.  Certainly Anonymous was there at Portland’s Grand Opening, but they were small in number and pretty polite, considering.

Anonymous was the spark, but the fuel was there in abundance.  The endless Scientology tricks and lies, the horrible abuses and the crimes were all there.  The Scientology survivors and the witnesses were all there in large numbers.  The continuing crimes, so carefully covered up, were all there.

Scientology has been creating their victims and, consequently, their enemies for over 60 years.  Thanks to Anonymous, it finally became safe to talk about it, document it and finally, finally, bring Scientology to the attention of the law and the courts.

The Church of Scientology is very, very frightened.  That was never more apparent than today, at Scientology’s small “grand” opening of their latest fortress against justice, truth and the very community they claim they want to help.


Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on July 05, 2013, 01:00:34 PM
                                                             The Missing Foundations of Scientology

Posted on June 30, 2013

It is interesting to me that some people who recognize the evil of the Church of Scientology,
still believe that Scientology, itself, is good....

Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on October 19, 2013, 05:39:07 PM
                                                                         The Big Bad Church of Scientology

Posted on October 13, 2013 by justbill001

Recently, I received a private message from a reader.  Unfortunately, the return email they provided wasn’t valid so I could not respond privately.

However, since I occasionally get similar messages from others, I felt it would be worthwhile to respond publicly.

I promise I won’t provide any identifying information about anyone who writes to me privately but, since these messages are similar, I won’t give anything away by providing a fictitious message that is similar to others I have received:

Please advise me what to do

I have been living in fear for many years.  The Church of Scientology continues to hurt me and my family but, because the harm cannot be seen, no one believes me.  I’ve written to others but they think I’m crazy.

Even now, the church is probably reading what I am typing and I will be punished.  I’m even afraid you will be punished for reading this message.

I guess there isn’t much you can do.  Thanks for listening.

An ex-Scientologist

Here is what I think:  I do understand this attitude.  This isn’t crazy, this is what Scientologists are supposed to believe because it keeps them fearful and in line when they are in Scientology and it keeps them fearful and quiet when they leave.  I have observed this before: Scientology is a religion of fear.

When I left Scientology, I felt much the same way.  Here was my response to this reader:

I’m truly sorry that you have having such a difficult time. Scientology does serious harm to people.  It really doesn’t help that most of that harm is mental (and therefore “invisible”).  When people claim that Scientology does do some good, it must be balanced against the harm and that harm is far, far more than any benefit from Scientology.

One of the tricks Scientology plays is what you refer to: The concept that Scientology and Scientologists are super-powerful people who have secret powers and can see everything.

Here is the truth: They aren’t and they don’t. Scientologists are just normal people with absolutely no special powers. They cannot tap your phone. They cannot see your (or my) computer and email. They do not know where you are or what you are doing.

This is absolutely true. They want you to believe the lies because it forces you to give them control over your life, but it just isn’t true. You will have noticed that, to spy on Marty (for example) they had to hire non-Scientology PIs – and even those guys were pretty limited in what they were able to do.

Scientologists have no more powers than the average person on the street. In fact, Scientology brainwashing makes them more prone to errors.

The Church of Scientology’s only real “power” comes from their total willingness to break the law.  But that is actually their biggest weakness, which is now coming back to haunt them.

Things are so rough for the church that all their attention is on desperate defense.  They have no time for you.  They are not interested in you at all.  Even many of those who are actively speaking out about Scientology’s abuses are being ignored by the church.

I want you to try to forget about Scientology as much as possible. The more you think about it, the more it will screw with you.  Understand that, by thinking about the church, you are giving Scientology the power over you that they, in fact, do not have.

I also urge you to find someone to talk to about this. Preferably someone who understands cults and cult brainwashing who can understand what you are talking about.

Trust me, things are much, much better than you think.

Please note that this advice does not apply where the Church of Scientology is actually doing something harmful, such as talking to neighbors, contacting employers and so on.  This doesn’t happen often but we all know it does happen to some of the more prominent “enemies” of the church.

Those things are actual actions that can be documented and reported to the police.  This isn’t what I’m talking about.  I’m talking about the belief that Scientology and Scientologists have secret, super powers and abilities and are using these powers to attack everyone, even those who have never spoken out.  I’m talking about the idea that the Church of Scientology has the time, the resources and the interest in attacking everyone who has ever been in Scientology.  They just don’t.  The church is almost gone and any resources they still have are very thinly stretched covering only the biggest flaps, news stories and court cases.

If you are not part of the biggest flaps, news stories or court cases, the church is not paying you any attention.


Title: Re: Ask the scientologist
Post by: Ididntcomeback on June 28, 2015, 03:37:19 AM
                                   Going Clear – The Obvious Question that Scientologists Cannot Even Think

Posted on March 16, 2015