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.
--

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.
-

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.
-

Ask a Question

I find it inconvenient when the questions go past 200 and I have to click to go to the next page to see the most recent questions and answers.  I'm sure you do too.  So, I'm starting yet another Ask a Question thread.

There are some really great questions and discussions in Ask a Question 1, 2, 3 and the just-retired one, 4.  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.

Scientologist's contributions are still welcome.  Trust me, I don't bite.

As always, I love to hear from you.
-

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, some 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.  There are no good psychiatrists.
• This means that all psychiatrists can remember their "past lives" when they were battling the Forces of Good all over the galaxy for quadrillions of years.  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 already have Evil Alien Beings living among us today.  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.
-

"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.
-

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 Examiner.com: 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.
-

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:

1. 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.
2. 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".
3. Someone who has successfully run a mission, an org and a Scientology "Continent" (group of churches/missions in one geographic area).
4. Someone who has a track record of successfully running a business in the real world.
5. Someone who has always fought David Miscavige and upheld "Standard Scientology" against Miscavige's rewrites, edits and corruption.
6. 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:

7. 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.
8. 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.
-

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.

Boring.

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.
-

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.
-