Because of various problems with Blogger, I've copied everything as of November 26, 2012 over to WordPress. The new location is Ask the Scientologist. I am not deleting this blog and will still accept comments and answer questions here too, but any new articles will appear at the WordPress location. I apologize if this causes any problems.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Ask a question!

No, I'm serious, really, ask a question.

413 comments:

  1. Are you a freezoner?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are we Freezoners? Nope.

    I think that Freezone is the better way for people who want to practice Scientology. From what I gather, it isn't abusive, criminal or fraudulent. From what I understand, it does not try to force or trick people into joining. All that is the way it should be.

    However, we don't wish to practice Scientology, so we are not Freezoners.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was just asking, because the blog is entitled "Ask a Scientologist" , but you didn't seem to be members of the CoS.

    How come that you know so much about Scientology? Are you ex Scientologists?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, we are very long term Scientologists who have left the Church of Scientology.

    Since you're not going to get straight answers from a current Scientologist, it is only worthwhile to ask an ex-Scientologist.

    You see, we can actually explain what Scientologists think, what they believe and what they are like. Something current Scientologists are forbidden to do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Do many ex-Scientologists still believe that psychiatry is truly evil & an industry of death?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know quite a few ex-Scientologists and I really don't know any who still ascribe to that extreme viewpoint.

    It really is one of those positions that is so extreme, it is easy to regain a sane viewpoint rather quickly, once one leaves the church.

    ReplyDelete
  7. just Bill, I'm glad to read you are not a freezoner but I would like you to clarify your thoughts "From what I gather, it isn't abusive, criminal or fraudulent." As far as I can gather freezoners are still loyal to Hubbard. If so then they perpetuate his fraudulent system.
    They left the "church" or were thrown out because Miscavige was 'altering the tech'. If they are free from OSA's oppression what is stopping them from examining and understanding the wealth of critical information on the internet?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for your comments. I always appreciate feedback.

    Regarding the Freezone, I take no position.

    The Church of Scientology, as created by Hubbard and as destroyed by Miscavige, is a criminal organization. It hides its goals, its intentions, its methods. It is money-hungry and operates as a cult.

    Freezone, on the other hand, is significantly different. I don't see the crimes, I don't see the abuse, I don't see the cult behavior.

    Does that make the Freezone "good"? Well, as you point out, they still believe in Hubbard - who has been exposed as a liar and a con man. However, while that doesn't make them, necessarily, good, it doesn't make them bad, either. They believe. Without the crimes and fraud, believing isn't a crime.

    There are a lot of people out there who believe in a lot of things. I refuse to get into any condemnation of anyone just because they believe something I don't.

    But there is more to the Freezone thing than just that. Scientology cannot be wiped out. The corrupt Church of Scientology can, and should be. But the belief system of Scientology? No, it cannot be wiped out. That's just a fact about ideas and belief systems. If an attempt were made to completely wipe out the belief system of Scientology, it would become a religion built on martyrs and oppression. Um... I do not want to see that.

    So, the Freezone is a place for True Believers to continue their beliefs in peace. If that's what they want and that's what they need -- and if they can forget the parts of Hubbard tech that created the criminal-cult-fraud-church -- then let them have their belief.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you very much for your prompt reply.
    Freezoners may well not be be 'bad'. I would say rather that they lack the brutal intent of their former 'church'. One positive development of some of the freezoners is that they do not see Hubbard as infallible. But they are deluded in thinking he has any credibility at all.

    From the 'tone scales' to the 'reactive mind' , the 'scientific studies' to the philosophical comparisons with eastern religions: all were designed to impress the mind before it was robbed. None of the aforementioned have any merit once you put them under the microscope.

    Continuing to believe in absolutely anything Hubbard said can only lead to a worsening of a persons state of mind, intellectually, emotionally and morally. It is not possible to "...forget the parts of Hubbard tech that created the criminal-cult-fraud-church.." because all the parts are intertwined.

    Your sentiments about letting people believe what they want is admirable. The question begs itself though: which part of Hubbards system do they want to be left alone to believe in? Xenu's scheming behaviour 75 million years ago? Body Thetans? Those don't bother me as much as the concept of 'Homo Novis'. This and other aspects of scientology were designed to seperate people from one another. It is a truly destructive system and the freezoners are still a part of it. That'd be fine if they kept it to themselves but the nature of enthusiasm cannot resist the desire to spread.

    Ursula Caberta calls the freezone "methadone" for ex members and calls it a "lesser evil", suggesting to the German government to maintain surveillance on the 'church' alone. The debate is still ongoing as to whether the cult should be banned outright. I think it should be. You say ,Bill, it would not be possible to wipe out scientology's belief system. But you've discarded it. How did you do that?.......that's how to do it then.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think this is a fascinating and worthwhile subject. Is it possible to separate out the harmful parts of Scientology? What are the harmful parts? Are any parts helpful? If so, which? How can you determine that?

    This is almost entirely subjective. If a person says and thinks they have been helped, can it be disproven?

    I am emphatically not in favor of banning some belief system. Period. Not only does it violate many human rights (freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion) but it is, as I said, a waste of time. Ideas cannot be wiped out. Suppress/oppress Scientology and it will become something we really don't want to see. If people are free to practice it, discuss it, try it, change it, discard it, it will remain a minor footnote of history -- and will eventually fade out. Suppress it and it will grow. Banning the belief system of Scientology gives it a power and validity it does not deserve.

    The Freezone is disorganized and quite random. Some are deep believers and some are taking only what (they believe) works. There is only one way to determine if a Freezone practitioner is doing harm or not. Look at them and see: Do they harm others? If they do, bring them to justice. If they do not, leave them alone.

    How else could it be?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Clearly then, Bill, you are for the Evolutionary Fadeout rather than the Revolutionary Cutoff .
    I think that the former is in the long run more effective, and less disruptive than the latter. However, the former needs that flow of information - which happily is building it's momentum thanks to the internet.
    But, newspapers and magazines habitually show criminals as celebrities. Avid readers of gossip columns and movie mags believe there should be a seperation between the professional and the private life. In my opinion though, this is a wish and not a belief, for the wish is not to be disturbed by things to think about which may ruin their simple enjoyment.

    When one are faced with indisputable facts and still poo-poo the evidence, or say 'it's nothing to do with me' and are not galvanised into some form of action, even if it's just writing a post like this, then you can accuse these people most accurately of irresponibilty and failing in moral duty. Scientology is not an irritant, like having to answer the door to roaming evangelists, it's a sinister attempt to replace established laws and customs with it's own totalitarian system. Europe has been through that nonsense with Hitler and Stalin.

    Therefore the draconian measure to ban scientology is a valid choice of means to prevent this happening, as the German government may well soon decide. First though I would like to see, as you too no doubt, Miscavige arrested and locked up. Before then, as it effects everyone's pockets, the tax-exemption should be abolished. Those who have suffered should be compensated. This will cause such a noise that the edifice will fall on it's own. Everyone can come out of the scientology woodwork free to tell their stories without worry of Fair Game or Disconnection. There'll be no need for a ban.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ah, yes. What you say is true. There must be, in my opinion, a distinction between "Scientology" as some kind of belief system and "the Church of Scientology" as a criminal organization.

    Banning the Church of Scientology, revoking any tax benefits or recognition of the Church of Scientology is necessary and appropriate, since it is harmful and has been well proven to be a criminal organization. Miscavige and company must be brought to justice and steps taken to ensure they do not profit from their crimes.

    As for the belief system -- all it needs is information, as you say. If all the information about Scientology is made available, the belief system will end up as it should.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Here are some questions I have about Scientology and I hope that you don't mind answering them. If the question seems confusing or you are not sure how to answer it feel free to just go off on a tangent or answer it in whatever way you feel comfortable or whatever comes to mind (or,of course, don't answer it at all)

    1) Is your belief system Apocalyptic or do you answer similar fundamental questions in a different way?

    2) What is your vision of the future?

    3) What is your conception of time? Of history?

    4) Who or what, if anything, controls the course of time and history? How, and for what purpose?

    5) Does your belief system have a conception of good? Evil? If so, what is the relationship between the two? What responsibilities do human beings have in the conception of good and/or evil?

    6) What is the conception of justice in this belief system? Who or what acts as judge? Are there rewards and/or punishments? For what transgressions and/or accomplishments?

    Thank you and I look forward to learning more about your beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1) Is your belief system Apocalyptic or do you answer similar fundamental questions in a different way?

    Scientologists do not believe in the Bible or any other religion's holy books. In fact, in the upper level materials from L. Ron Hubbard, they are taught that other religions are fake, implanted for purposes of control.

    2) What is your vision of the future?

    Scientologists work towards a "Scientology world", in which Scientology is in control of all countries and people of the world. They believe this is "for your own good". To them, this would be a world of peace, no war, no criminals, no insanity.

    3) What is your conception of time? Of history?

    Hmmm. Time is defined by Hubbard, but the definition is too complex to cover here. Hubbard believed and taught the universe was created 75 trillion years ago. It was, he said, created by people, not by God. He taught that the universe is just one very large, elaborate trap. Supposedly, Scientology is the only way out of that trap.

    4) Who or what, if anything, controls the course of time and history? How, and for what purpose?

    According to Hubbard, people are the only causative force in the universe. They are responsible for whatever happens. God is not included in any of this. The purpose, as I said earlier, is the universe is a trap, and people want to get out of that trap.

    5) Does your belief system have a conception of good? Evil? If so, what is the relationship between the two? What responsibilities do human beings have in the conception of good and/or evil?

    Scientology believes that "man is basically good" and basically wants to survive and for others to survive. Bad things have happened - in the last 75 trillion years - which make people do bad things. But then they feel bad about it. Some people have had so much bad happen to them that they act "evil", but they are still, according to Hubbard, basically good.

    6) What is the conception of justice in this belief system? Who or what acts as judge? Are there rewards and/or punishments? For what transgressions and/or accomplishments?

    That would be a very long discourse. Basically, justice comes from the Church of Scientology and Hubbard's writings. Whatever Hubbard said, or whatever the church says is wrong - well, it's wrong. There are lists of "misdemeanors", "crimes" and "high crimes", many of which are worded so vaguely that anything could be considered a crime. The church is judge and jury. In practice, there are virtually no rewards, except one is "allowed" to continue in Scientology - if one follows all the rules closely. If one doesn't follow all the rules, one is stopped. The ultimate punishment is to kick a person out of Scientology (that is, they can never get out of the "trap"). Google "Scientology disconnection" for more information on that punishment.

    If you think of Scientology as a cross between a business and a cult, you will have a better understanding of what it is and what it does. It has virtually nothing of similarity to any other religion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear Bill,

    I just wanted to say thank you for responding. I found your answers very informative and thought provoking. I'm interested in looking more into Scientology so if I have any other questions I definitely know at least one place to ask. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Some people have had so much bad happen to them that they act "evil", but they are still, according to Hubbard, basically good."

    You may well agree with me that Hubbards concept of 'good' is different from our everyday understanding of the word. To clarify this for readers of your excellent post who may believe you think Hubbard had at least one agreeable thought: 'good' to Hubbard meant doing or being according to his advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  17. General Public AYSOctober 21, 2008 at 4:35 AM

    I'm getting a wee bit annoyed by blog sites or comments ridiculing Hubbards stories or making out scientology is just another crazy religion. Such flippant attitudes expose a laziness of intellectual application which ought to look more deeply into the employment of the TR's where the success of scientology is established.

    Only when the TR's are properly examined is it possible to imagine how even intelligent people get involved. Perhaps some people should try them out. Only the style of them belong to Hubbard , the use of similar methods and the intention behind them have been seen before. They surreptitiously prepare members to commit and to accept crimes done by and on behalf of their organisation. However, one doesn't read very much about them.

    What was your personal experience of the TR's? Could scientology survive without them?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @sue mee

    Well, yes. Hubbard's definition of "good" is defined more in terms of "survival" than any "Christian values", and Hubbard always considered himself and Scientology as most deserving to survive.

    Today, Miscavige has gone even further and considers himself and his version of the Church of Scientology as the only entities that deserve to survive. Everyone else, including all other Scientologists, can succumb as long as Miscavige and his small group of sycophants "survives".

    ReplyDelete
  19. @General Public AYS

    You make a good point. It is very true that intelligent people have been roped into Scientology. Gullible, yes, but also some very smart folk as well. How can that be? I'm sure there have been and will be studies done on this phenomenon. How can otherwise quite intelligent people get lured into something that appears, in later analysis (with more data) absurd?

    Of course, the phenomena is only possible because of the technique of only revealing small bits of information when the member is "ready" for it. And, of course, the definition of "ready" is when the person believes deeply enough to believe the next level of preposterous data.

    As far as the TR drills are concerned, no, Scientology would not survive without the TRs. They are powerful techniques for making a person into a "Scientologist". But they are not singular in that regard. Every step of Scientology works to create in the person an acceptance of the next "level" of belief. "Here are the answers." "Here are the methods." "Here are the true secrets."

    But, prepare them to accept the crimes that the church commits? Not so much, I think. It is Hubbard's "Ethics Formulas" and ethics policies that most prepare the Scientologist to accept the crimes that the church commits. Here in the Ethics policies you will find all the justifications for the crimes. Here you will find the indoctrination that the Church of Scientology is Ultimate Good being opposed by Ultimate Evil, and anything is justified when fighting "Ultimate Evil". Here you will find the control mechanism that Scientologists must never, ever doubt Hubbard or the church or THEY will become labeled "Ultimate Evil" themselves. So, they become blind to the church's crimes.

    At least, that's the way I see it.

    Hmmm, might have another article here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Could you please write an article on scientology's attempts to legitimatise itself as a religion. I have heard of a whole range of things it does to make itself appear "mainstream," such as calling in people for "Sunday Services", holding "interfaith" conferences ostensibly to bring together religions (but more for the purpose of appearing to be right up there with the other mainstream religions); postulating the existence of God, and even pigeon-holing Him into the "Eight Dynamic", while doing nothing to assist parishioners to actually develop a personal relationship with Him; systematic attempts to gain "religious recognition" in country after country, etc. I have only heard bits and pieces on this subject, and I know scientology continues to press for "religious recognition" here in UK and continually fails at it. I would be interested in what are the true motivations for palming off scientology as a real religion and how the organisation has been going about legitimising themselves as such. Thank you for your fantastic articles and thank you in advance for your kind attention to this request.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks for the suggestion, I like it. We'll see what we can put together.

    I've touched on the subject in other articles, but not quite in the way you suggest. In case you haven't read these: Scientology: Business or Church?, Is Scientology a Cult?, Scientology and Religious Tolerance, Scientology vs Freedom of Religion.

    Thanks for the suggestion!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bill, Many thanks for answering my request to write an article on the many ways and means that scientology uses to palm itself off as a "mainstream" religion. And thank you for the articles, which I read avidly. I made my request because a friend of mine recently left the organisation after having been in their employ for some 30 years. Since he has been out, he has discovered in Christianity things he found were completely devoid in scientology: like love, forgiveness and peace. Although scientology claims to believe in God, this is only cursory. Apparently, per him, if parishioners or staff are found praying or otherwise trying to talk or listen to God, they are "corrected" on "other-practices." Apparently, according to scientology, my friend's newfound feelings of love and peace come from ancient "implants," not from God. From what my friend tells me, the only time God is seriously discussed in scientology is whenever someone outside the so-called church asks, "Do you guys believe in God." Only then do they talk the talk. But they never walk the walk. I don't mean to fixate on this God point. I just bring it up because it demonstrates to me that this so-called religion is trying to appear to be something it is not. Right there in your country, 92% of Americans believe in God, so the scientology organisation has its work cut out for it if they are truly aspiring to become a real mainstream religion. Thanks again for what you are doing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Found your blog and love it! I've read through all these questions, and now my question is: Why a religion? What is the real reason why Elron decided to go down that route? Why not a self-help business? What the hell was he thinking? I mean Scientology is just soooo not a religion. Their efforts at portraying themselves as a religion look so shallow and phoney that they inevitably come out looking like a creepy cult, so WTF with this religion stuff? It's not working for them so why do it?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks for the compliments and feedback.

    I totally agree that the Church of Scientology operates fully and only like a business. The "religion" is tacked on, and not very convincing.

    There is a lot of information now about why a religion. A number of people have written extensively about this, especially Larry Brennen. I'm not sure I can add anything to this, but I'll give it some thought.

    Some interesting aspects of this are that Hubbard himself said at first that Scientology wasn't a religion. Another aspect is that the whole thing might run much better as a business...

    Thanks for the suggestion!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bill, thanks for answering the "why religion" question I asked. OMG I should have known it's the same old old old OLD motivations: MONEY AND POWER. You're the best blogger out there on the subject of this sick cult, so thank you for what you do. You are really helping people steer clear of these creeps. Your "it's a business" article and the Larry Brennan stuff was informative, but I hope you do your own article on the "why religion" subject in your unique, incisive style. It's obvious it's a business, but I think it is helpful to expose WHY they go around pretending to be a religion. Wolves in sheep's clothing, aren't they?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I see on other forums that a test case lawsuit is being brought against Co$ for labor law violations. The person who is pursuing this case (Marc Headley) has undoubtedly been made to sign all sorts of waivers and docs along with other attempts to intimate him into not pursuing his rights. He has quite an uphill climb if he is ever to win this battle, but let's wish him well in his fight for justice. Could you please do an article exposing how Co$ goes about silencing its ex-members so they never assert their rights.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give it some thought. The new lawsuit is, in my opinion, a watershed event. We'll see what kind of case he's bringing. This isn't just Marc, he's just starting the ball rolling, but this is, potentially, all current and ex-Sea Org members and, perhaps regular staff as well.

    We'll see.

    As for all the contracts, waivers and such that Scientologists must sign... I think these are some of the CoS's biggest goofs. I understand (IANAL) that these are so over the top that they are, intrinsically, invalid and legally bogus.

    Again, we'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  28. My question is similar to a couple of others I see here. Who, besides David Miscavige, is "top management" of the Scientology enterprises nowadays? Who takes over is Miscavige can't continue? Where is this info available?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thank you for the info on your site. Here's a question: do you believe the story that the former leaders of Scientology are declared suppressive and basically imprisoned (in "SP Hall") at the hemet base? It's hard for an outsider to believe. How can this be confirmed?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Answer to question of who is in charge besides David Miscavige?

    No one.

    No one is "being groomed". No one is qualified. Anyone with any intelligence or ability was a threat to Miscavige and he removed them.

    Now this seems insane, and it is. If something happened to Miscavige, I'm sure that someone would "take over", but no one with any experience or intelligence is in any position to do so, so such a replacement would be pretty poor.

    As for the reports that all the people who were in any position of authority or responsibility were removed by Miscavige and locked up. This has been confirmed independently by many sources. Of course, the church would not confirm this, but it has been confirmed by dozens who were there and who witnessed it.

    I doubt that there was any "official" declaration of these poor people as "suppressive persons", but I'm equally sure that such declares were written up by Miscavige and waved in their faces. The church cannot afford to have this information known by regular Scientologists, so it is a very deep, dark secret within the church.

    Confirmation? Well, everyone who finally escapes from the Int Base can, and does, confirm the story -- again and again. I'm not sure what more confirmation is needed.

    After the church has collapsed, and Miscavige is in jail or has fled the country, the stories will flood out of the various Scientology prisons. Until then, the truth will just leak out as it has been doing for these many years.

    ReplyDelete
  31. So, in Hubbard's fake cosmology, what happened to the Galactic federation or whatever it's called, after Xenu was deposed?

    Did the 'loyal officers, take over? Did Hubbard mention where the other 75 planets are? Are these planets yet supossedly inhabited?

    p.s. You're a very talted writer!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thanks!

    If you want to know more about Hubbard's "confidential" Xenu story, look up his screenplay called "Revolt in the Stars".

    Strangely for "information that will kill anyone who isn't properly prepared", Hubbard wanted to get that story made into a movie!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi Bill, I am Berti.

    I have discovered your blog yesterday and find it extremely interesting and valuable!

    I came into Scientology in 1997 but did not know until today that the C.O.B. behaves like an Emporer and is responsible for a destructive direction the Church has taken since he took over.

    Was LRH himself a good person, really wanting to make the world better?

    If he was still alive today and would have directed the Church the way he felt it was right - would you enjoy being a Scientologist?

    Meanwhile I have read so many quotes from LRH which do not give me the impression that he was any better than David Miscavage.

    I am very interested to know what your position is, and what other ex-Scientologists are thinking.

    Berti

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hi Berti,

    Welcome to our blog!

    There is a lot of differing opinions about LRH. Some Scientologists have rejected the church, but still revere Hubbard. More often, ex-Scientologists consider him a con man, or worse.

    But what was he really?

    Certainly the nasty quotes you read from LRH are true, but they aren't the whole picture.

    I think he was a very complex man, he could be very charming; he could be a tyrant; he could be brilliant; he could be quite vicious. In his later years, he was pretty bad off, quite sick and in pain and was mostly a bitter old man.

    Mind you, David Miscavige is different. He is not complex. Miscavige is just plain vicious -- and certainly never brilliant.

    But, in the end, you have to look at what LRH created. LRH created Miscavige. He created the environment and opportunity for Miscavige to exist and take over. LRH created an organization that was money motivated. LRH promised many, many quite amazing things, but was never able to produce anything he promised. "Clears" aren't what he promised at all. "OTs" don't exist. All the promises up the Grade Chart levels are not fulfilled. That indicates that he was more of a con man than guru.

    But it may be argued that he was brilliant. There are those who insist that some of his "breakthroughs" really are useful. I don't know, but, if there is anything useful in Hubbard's work, perhaps people will build from there and create something from it. If so, then, perhaps, something good might come from Hubbard's life.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Shouldn't we be glad that Miscavage is about to run the whole organization down? If he was a good man and the management much more ethical - there would be many more happy Scientologists, less criticism and the organization would spread around the world much faster, until "the orgs say what is legal or not", and in the end run countries. A world-wide Truman show.

    Still: The fassade is very colorful. The Church has a lot of social projects and is very engaged in the Human Rights movement.It becomes more and more presentable. And of course no one would doubt that this organisation is violating the Human Rights knowingly every day.

    Acknowledgement as a Church in most countries show how successful the management is in deceiving the public.
    And it deceived me successfully as well. Because I wanted to get the auditing I was fond of and did not care about the question if the organization was ethical or vicious.

    Will the decline of parishioners in the Western world suffocate the Church financially - or will the growing income in the rest of the world save the organisation and make it expand?

    Berti

    ReplyDelete
  36. Berti,

    I hate the fact that Miscavige is hurting a lot of people. He is bringing pain and financial ruin to thousands of people. He is committing crimes. It is difficult to "be glad" of his crimes -- but he is the primary cause of the collapse of the church.

    You have one piece of misinformation. You spoke of the Church of Scientology's "acknowledgement as a Church in most countries". That is the impression that the church wants you to have, but the truth is quite the opposite. There are about 200 countries in the world. The Church of Scientology is "recognized as a church" in only eight. That is far, far from "most". That is pretty insignificant.

    Actually, in several of those countries, the "recognition" is more as a non-profit organization rather than as a religion.

    Please read Scientology: Why "Religion" for more information. No real religion is so insistent that it is "not a religion".

    Miscavige is pretty good at deceiving Scientologists, but he has completely failed in deceiving the public at large. His tricks worked for awhile, but you can't keep lying and lying and lying to the world. When they discover your lies, as they have, the whole house of cards falls down. That is the current state of the Church of Scientology, a collapsing house of cards.

    Berti, getting your mind out of the Scientology bubble can be a long process. There are so many lies, it is difficult, at first, to encompass the scope of the deception. Keep at it. Keep working to sort out the truth from the lies. It is important.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks for your answer to my earlier question about "SP Hall." I wish the press would get hold of that... it is a genuinely mind-boggling state of affairs. I have another question, if you don't mind. I am confused about the distinction between "Sea Org" and "staff." Are there scientology full-time staffers who are not in the Sea Org? If so, are they paid differently than the Sea Org-ers? Why aren't they in the Sea Org?

    ReplyDelete
  38. The "local orgs" (meaning the smaller churches) are generally staffed by people who sign 2 1/2 year or 5 year contracts. In exchange for these contracts, they get some "free" training. These staff are paid based on what the local church makes in a week. Often a few dollars.

    I call it "free" but if they don't stay for the entire contract, they must pay for the training in full. Most people do not last the full contract. At such low pay, it is virtually impossible to live.

    Some people work at the local org without a contract, but that's less usual. Nobody is making a living wage, that's for sure.

    The higher "orgs" (meaning the larger, advanced churches) such as the "Advanced Organization, Flag, and all of the management organizations of Scientology are staffed almost exclusively by Sea Org members. These people sign "billion year contracts" and get paid a set wage per week -- which is usually cut and cut again as punishment -- and amounts to a few dollars a week. It's pretty much slave labor, since they are "contracted" for life and don't get much pay, no benefits, no vacation, no health insurance, no "overtime pay" (but lots of overtime).

    In some cases, Sea Org members are assigned to work at a local org, usually as one of the executives -- International Management calls that "sending a mission". If the Sea Org members stay at a local org for an extended time, it's called a "garrison mission". Very military.

    Also International Management stations a Sea Org member at each local org called the "Flag Banking Officer" who takes all the money from the local org and then returns a bit of it for staff pay, supplies and the like (and sends most of it to International Management [Miscavige]).

    The only person making a living wage in any of this is David Miscavige -- and he's doing quite well. $150,000.00 a year with all expenses totally paid for, hot and cold running servants, plus nice vacations etc.

    But for all that, I wouldn't trade places with him for the world.

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  39. One more thing about SP hall, and about the RPF and all the abuses that are going on at Int Base: The basic problem with this is that the people, the victims of Miscavige and his ilk, are so brainwashed and so degraded, they think they deserve the punishment. They are still absolutely loyal to Miscavige and Scientology. If they were released from their prisons, they would claim "nothing is wrong, I'm doing this voluntarily, I'm perfectly happy" and would actually return to their Scientology prisons!

    Makes it hard for any justice official to prosecute the criminals doing this.

    This may be one of the saddest parts of the whole story.

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thanks again for your informative replies. If the SP Hall inmates are there voluntary, in the sense you describe, that goes some distance toward explaining how such an appalling state of affairs could continue for years. (And that is very sad, indeed.) I realize that I'm calling for speculation here, but do you think that ex-execs (like Rathbun and Rinder) who have reputedly "blown" after stints in SP hall (but who have remained publicly silent) still believe there was something valid about that state of affairs? I don't think any former inmates of the SP Hall have written or spoken in public about it, have they?

    ReplyDelete
  41. It is certain that some of those who have been kicked out of the Church of Scientology still believe in Hubbard and his tech. However, I doubt that any are still under the delusion that Miscavige is doing anything but serious damage. Anyone who has worked directly with and for Miscavige knows that he is a sociopath.

    But for the most part, I'm sure that those who are kicked out are no longer believers in the current version of Scientology.

    There are many, many reasons that people do not speak out about the abuses. They may still have a wife or husband, family or good friends who are still in -- and they may be allowed to stay in touch only on the condition that they keep silent. Some are embarrassed about the roles they had in such abuse -- before they became victims themselves. The Church of Scientology has a tremendous amount of blackmail material available to keep people silent, not only from confessionals, but also from things those people have ordered or carried out while in the church.

    And a few who simply had too much information have been paid off on the condition that they remain silent.

    I'm sure there are even more reasons.

    Which makes those who do speak out all the more heroes in my view.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I love your column. I was in Scientology for 20 years. Though I know I am clear, I was never "declared clear." I have had wonderful old school field auditors so my exposure was wonderful; it was only bad the couple of times I went to Flag. That is a different world I want nothing of. Here's my question: I am open minded and read quite a bit. I just read "Journey of Souls" and I have many specific questions. I know the answers will be out gradient and maybe too confidential to discuss, but can you comment on "between lives"? Where can I email you with more questions along this tope that might not be suitable for the general population?
    Keep up the great work on this blog! Mary

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi Mary,

    Glad to have you visiting our blog!

    That whole "confidential" stuff is a trick to make people think that Scientology is "powerful" and "dangerous". Just not true.

    Several things you need to know to help you see the reality of this:

    First, all of Scientology's "confidential" information has been available on the Internet, in court documents, in newspapers -- for many, many years. Millions of people have read this stuff and no one has gotten ill! Nothing has happened to anyone reading this material. Not dangerous. It hasn't done anything to millions of people.

    Second, Hubbard himself tried to get the "dangerous", "confidential" OT III information made into a movie called "Revolt in the Stars". Yes, that is true, do a Google search on it and you can read Hubbard's screenplay.

    So, there is nothing about Scientology that needs to be confidential, except maybe for the embarrassment factor.

    If you have a question, please, go ahead and ask it.

    As for "between lives," that is an early Hubbard concept, involving implants and so on. There are a lot of things Hubbard said, and taught, in the early days, that he later shut up about. This is one of them. Did he change his mind? Did he decide it was wrong? We'll never know.

    Personally, I no longer blindly believe that everything Hubbard said is absolutely true. What is true is what I, personally, have experienced. There can be no other criteria. Because you asked, Hubbard's "between lives" implants is not true for me.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hi guys -
    My name is Shaun O' Connor. I recently filmed an extended interview with ex-Scientologist John Duignan, author of "The Complex: An Insider Exposes The Covert World Of The Church Of Scientology."

    For anyone interested, it is available to watch online now, at

    http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=ScVBJPGeEio

    Thanks,
    Shaun

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hello, and thanks again for your great site. I assume you're aware of former top exec Mark Rathbun's going public with the fact that he's out of the CoS, and posting a big photo of himself with his arm around prominent Scientology critic Jason Beghe. (http://rathbunmark.topcities.com/) Am I correct in interpreting this as a taunting public insult to David Miscavige? What else do you make of this? And what do you think that is happening behind the scenes in the Scientology organization in reaction to Rathbun and the wave of internet publicity about high-profile Scientologist who have "blown"?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yes, I am aware of Mark Rathbun's recent statements. It obviously is not something that Miscavige is going to like, I'd love to be a fly on the wall when that hit Davy's desk.

    I do think that Rathbun's exit, as well as Beghe's, and others, are getting through the Scientology shield, but what that's doing to Scientologists' minds I don't know yet. We'll have to wait for some feedback from our spies.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hi Bill, Mary here again. Lots of questions today.

    Can we talk more about between lives? Where do we go? What do we do there? Do we have a choice about returning here? Do we all have a purpose in returning here?

    If there really is a "natural clear" how did one get that way?"

    Is hypnosis all that bad? LRH talks so much against it, but if it could handle some troubles (trying to quit smoking or drinking, something like that) when endless sessions did not, what is so bad about that? Couldn't another session just clean up whatever the hypnosis supposedly did "to" you?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hi Mary,

    Glad to have you back for a visit.

    These are difficult questions, because they are, basically, questions about what LRH thought. I'll try my best from what I've learned.

    LRH had a bit to say about "between lives", he said that there were "implant stations" that everyone is forced to go to, where you were given amnesia and then ordered back to pick up a new body. According to LRH, people were programmed to go to these implant stations by prior implants. He claimed there were implant stations on Earth, on the Moon, on Mars and elsewhere. Ron also claimed that he had destroyed all the nearby "implant stations" so that people wouldn't be implanted any more. He claimed that any "purposes" people have were the result of these implants and were false.

    That's what he said.

    True? I sincerely doubt it. I've never heard of anyone else who claimed to have any experiences similar to what LRH claimed. What happens "between lives"? Your guess is as good as mine. Personally, if you believe in reincarnation, I think it would probably be something like: You die, you go find a new body, you're born.

    As for "natural clear", the technical definition of a "natural clear" would be someone who never did create his/her "reactive mind" in the first place. Does such a thing exist? Don't know. No one has proven that a Dianetics-created Clear (per LRH's definition) exists at all, so I don't know.

    Hypnosis is considered a bit dangerous by anyone who knows about it. When someone has such complete control over another person, it could be misused. However, Hubbard used hypnosis a lot, so for him to condemn it completely is a bit hypocritical, don't you think? I'd try hypnosis if it looked like that would help, but I'd be careful who I'd let do it.

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  49. Why is cos so obsessed with money and stats?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Short answer: Because Hubbard was obsessed with money and stats.

    All of his "policy letters" have the bringing in of money as one of the foundations. Hubbard always wanted money, while claiming he didn't.

    Statistics were the way Hubbard felt he had complete control over everyone in his church.

    ReplyDelete
  51. What are your thoughts on the communication course and student hat course? I heard they are helpful, I was thinking of just taking those and just not doing anymore after that but worried about being hassled to take more, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Communications Course and Student Hat.

    My personal opinion is do not bother.

    First, you would never, ever get away from the Church of Scientology. They will track you down wherever you are and hound you to "take your next step".

    Second, the Student Hat technology has pretty well been debunked as anything "new" or worthwhile. There are better courses for learning good study habits.

    Third, the Communications Course. I mean, really, Scientologists have the most incredibly difficult time communicating with anyone outside of Scientology. Look at the graduates of the course! You undoubtedly communicate better now than any Scientologist. What makes you think they could teach you anything?

    No, really, the "Communications" Course and the Student Hat are merely the first step into the indoctrination of Scientology, the end result is you would be unable to communicate with anyone but Scientologists.

    No, don't take these courses. They don't provide the gains promised. Their intention is to indoctrinate you and trap you into the Scientology bubble. Trust me on this.

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  53. i have one question. it seems like scientologists are told by the church early on that the xenu stuff is lies, but i always wondered what happens when that person reaches otIII and then finds out about xenu? is that when the person leaves the church?

    it just seems by now everyone has heard of xenu and i was just wondering what the typical reaction is for scientogists once they find out about himi on otIII

    ReplyDelete
  54. Re: Xenu and how Scientologists now react to learning it's true:

    Tell you the truth, I don't actually know. While the story has been out for a long time, the really widespread dissemination of the Xenu story with the undeniable evidence from Hubbard himself is a recent phenomena. South Park wasn't that long ago.

    So, I haven't actually met anyone who was exposed to the story at some early stage, had it denied, then reached OT III. I'd be interested to hear from someone who has done that.

    I suspect the result would depend on how deeply they had been "properly" indoctrinated into Scientology.

    ReplyDelete
  55. A couple of questions about the visual symbols of Scientology. I think I understand some, like the ARC and KRC triangle. The mountains, pyramids and volcanoes make some sense... moving to the top, that sort of thing. But what's with the Lion that sometimes shows up? And when I saw a leaked "come to flag" promo film, over and over a shiny gold ring appeared (in front of a matterhorn-like mountain). Got any insight into the meaning of those symbols?

    ReplyDelete
  56. On the symbols of Scientology -- yes I know, as much as someone can figure out what Hubbard was thinking.

    Some of the symbols, like the ARC/KRC triangles, the Dianetic's pyramid and such are just symbols, with no secret meanings.

    The volcano and many such symbols in Scientology have "secret meanings". Hubbard believed that he could use these symbols from, what he called, the "Whole Track" (trillions of years ago), to manipulate people without their knowledge or consent.

    The volcano is from the secret OT III materials. Images of angels are from the same source. The lion? I think that was surveyed as a symbol for "certainty", if I recall correctly.

    Shiny gold ring? Don't know.

    In all cases, with either the "Whole Track" images, or the surveyed symbols, Hubbard was trying to manipulate people without their knowledge and without their will.

    He really believed this stuff worked, and he specifically did not want to reason with people or discuss things. He just wanted to flash some image at them and have their unthinking obedience.

    He figured his weird OT III images were perfect for that...

    Unsurprisingly, it hasn't worked yet. But that is the story behind Scientology's symbols.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Thanks for your response to my question about the symbols. Is there someplace in particular where Hubbard has written about his use of "whole track" imagery?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Re: Hubbard's Whole Track imagery...

    Yes. There were a number of confidential issues on this, back when he first started using the "OT III images".

    Unfortunately, they are not available and have not yet been leaked. At least, I haven't seen them. It would be a kick to see them again! Anyone have them?

    Information on surveyed symbols (like the lion) was included in Hubbard's Marketing issues regarding "Positioning". I haven't seen those on the Internet either, but, not being "confidential", they might be around.

    ReplyDelete
  59. What is the importance of clearing words, knowing definitions of simple words in Scientology? It's seems like such a rigorous practice, does it serve a purpose?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Re: Clearing words, especially the small words.

    Hubbard read some things about the problems with study, and this bit of data, about defining words, especially small, common words, caught his fancy.

    So, he pretended he invented the idea and wrote up a bunch of issues on it.

    As with anything in Scientology, you can't do it casually. You must do it all intensely, thoroughly, exactly. So Scientologists tend to become obsessed with looking up words.

    Now, there is nothing wrong with defining words and ensuring you understand what you're reading. However, the extreme obsession with this as practiced by Scientologists can, and often does get in the way of study. It certainly makes casual reading for pleasure virtually impossible.

    I know of one Scientologist, because of this obsession, finally decided to only read children's books, so she wouldn't have to look up any words!

    It's just Hubbard, and Scientologists, taking a good idea and taking it to the unworkable extreme.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I was wondering. What is the deal with Hubbard and the fact that he is so unclear as to what is supposed to happen to thetans? At one point he says we are immortal thetans, yet at other times he is saying we will become MEST or that the fate of mankind depends on what you do here and now in Scientology. Are we supposed to live only a certain number of lifetimes or what? Can someone explain this in as much detail as possible?

    ReplyDelete
  62. I enjoy visiting your site periodically, but today I noticed that there is no article on your home page. Has your site been attacked?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Re: What eventually happens to Thetans.

    Hubbard claimed that the physical universe was created by one or a few thetans, as a game and as a trap. Then he or they got others to join in, sometimes voluntarily, and sometimes by trickery or force.

    And we were all stuck here. We can't get out because 1) we've forgotten the original agreement (it's like a password to get out) and 2) because, by now, we're all are responsible for the mess, we have to all get out -- or none of us can leave.

    OK, so, we're all here playing games and whatnot, and it sometimes gets ugly, with thetans messing with other thetans, trapping them more, degrading them, hurting them. And gradually, everybody is getting worse and worse -- more trapped, more degraded.

    Until, a bunch of us end up on Earth (and other planets), so trapped and degraded that we believe we're bodies, and we believe we only live once.

    And Hubbard's prediction was that the trapping and degradation would continue until thetans became unable to even do that much, and, instead, believed they were rocks, or something.

    That's Hubbard's "dwindling spiral". He warned, if everyone didn't apply Scientology and "go OT", the entire population of the universe would end up, eventually, believing they are rocks -- forever.

    This, more than anything, could be called the core theology of Scientology.

    It's a pretty bleak scenario, and is why the true believers are so desperate. The threat of being "trapped as a rock" -- forever -- is pretty awful. And they are told that Scientology is the only way out.

    That last bit, about Scientology being the way out is obviously false. Hubbard completely failed to produce any OTs. Not one. He died in hiding, sick and insane, betrayed by those he trusted. All his "technology" couldn't save him from a most horrible end to his life. Pretty much puts a lie to all he claimed.

    But the rest of that theology? Heck, like all theology, can't be proven or disproven. It's pretty unusual, though.

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  64. Re: No front page article:

    Yeah, I saw that too, a couple of days ago. I think Blogger is having a few technical difficulties. A couple of refreshes seemed to fix it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I was wondering. How often doea the COFS produce theta clears? i.e. People who can leave their bodies upon will and before they die and choose another body. I read in an L's pamphlet that LRH said that he would never let anyone leave the ship while they were doing the Ls until they were exterior with full perceptions. I talked to a woman running a Scientology life improvement center and she said she did the Ls and was not a "stable thetan exterior" which was what the Ls purported to do on the pamphlet. I also talked to the guy who owns idenics and he said he knew LRH and did the Ls and he did not have these abilities. However, I worked with a guy who was OT 3 who personally knew LRH when he was alive and when I worked with him I went partially exterior despite the fact that I was not on my OT levels and had only done a Joburg confessional. Can someone give me the scoop about theta clears?

    ReplyDelete
  66. The Church of Scientology never produces theta Clears. Hubbard never produced a theta Clear.

    As Hubbard continued to promise "Clear", and continued to fail to deliver anything, he kept changing the name (Clear, Theta Clear, Cleared Theta Clear), the definition and such. Under any name, no Clears have ever been produced.

    That is a huge fraud, since "Clear" is promised, and people "attest to Clear", and yet, per Hubbard's definition, no Clears were produced.

    ReplyDelete
  67. This is a question about the logic of Church management. The CoS seems to put a great deal of emphasis on their buildings... the promotional films I've seen always feature a segment showing their main campuses (including the ship). However, "Pac Base" has had the top of it's building in a wrecked condition, swathed in tarps, for years. The "Super Power" building in Clearwater has stood partially built for years. Meanwhile, they're buying new buildings for millions of dollars and pumpeing money into "ideal org" remodels. I cannot fathom the logic by which they let their most prominent buildings stand in disrepair while dolling out big bucks for lower-profile projects. What are they thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Miscavige learned, from the Superpower building, that new buildings are impressive. They have a "wow!" factor with Scientologists. Scientologists thought it meant Miscavige "was doing something!"

    And, he learned that he can use a "new building" to quite easily raise millions of dollars. The Superpower building was a horrible failure, and yet Scientologists gave and gave and gave.

    He learned, from Superpower, that it looks like expansion. Media will report that "the Church of Scientology is expanding!" even when the building never gets finished.

    He learned that he never has to actually complete anything to accomplish these things -- perception that "Miscavige is effective", lots of money from Scientologists and the appearance of expansion.

    As a bonus, he gets ownership of a lot of real estate because all this property is transferred to "Int. Landlord", controlled by Miscavige.

    It's rather clever, in a slimy, disgusting way. Mind you, it accelerates the collapse of the church, but it "looks great" at his events.

    It proves, once again, that once you have a bunch of gullible people under your control, you can do just about anything.

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  69. I realize I didn't directly answer the question as to why Miscavige allows the major buildings to stand incomplete or in disrepair while focussing on the "new" buildings.

    The answer to that is, when the going get's tough, Miscavige gives up.

    Superpower got difficult. Miscavige knows that, when the "Superpower" building gets finished, he's going to have to start delivering Superpower. And there are vast difficulties to doing that. Superpower actually doesn't exist in a deliverable form, and working that out has proven quite difficult -- so Miscavige gave up.

    The Big LA Complex repair ran into other difficulties. It got hard. So Miscavige gave up.

    Miscavige has a lot of trouble completing projects that are easy, when things get hard, he can't handle it. The leadership of Miscavige is littered with abandoned projects and virtually no successes.

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  70. Are you aware of any specific trouble suffered by C of $ due to the recession? Any orgs closing, etc? I am sure in general one can assume there is less money flowing into their coffers, but is there any specific, solid data you know of?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Specifically? Not really. I have seen the level of desperation rising in all church communications. They are suffering -- but to what extent is this the economy, and what part is just the ongoing collapse of Scientology, I can't quantify.

    One thing is certain, it isn't helping the church when even the truest of their believers can't come up with amount of money they used to.

    I suspect that the church's increased pressure on their followers to give more-more-more, as a result of falling revenue, is causing the defection rate to increase as well.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Was L Ron Hubbard obsessive complusive?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Re: Was Hubbard obsessive compulsive?

    I'm not trained, nor was he ever seen by anyone who was trained in diagnosing such.

    If you mean OCD, then I doubt it. None of the stories indicate any OCD behavior.

    But he was pretty weird. He was a clean freak, demanding no scents, no dust, special cleaning procedures, for his environment. He always had his own cook, and his own meals, separate from everyone else. There are other stories of similar kind.

    But he didn't go around mumbling some phrase over and over. He didn't repeat some senseless actions over and over -- at least not in the OCD sense.

    Whatever his craziness, he was pretty high-functioning for most of his life. Towards the end, thing fell apart for him.

    ReplyDelete
  74. TRs, which Hubbard said stood for "Training Routines" or, perhaps, "Training Regimens" (he couldn't make up his mind) are special drills Hubbard created to help train "auditors" (people who apply Scientology techniques to others).

    While these are called "communication drills", they teach a strange kind of communication, not a social communication.

    According to Hubbard, he broke "communication" down into its most basic parts, and then created drills for each part.

    For instance, the first drill "TR0" (TR zero) drills the student to "be there". Two people just sit several feet apart and look at each other, saying nothing and doing nothing for hours, until they can sit there comfortably. This, according to Hubbard, is the foundation to being able to communicate.

    TR0-Bullbait is where students do the TR0 drill, but one of the students (the coach) tries to get the other student to react. They yell, say funny things, nasty things, shocking things, etc. and the other student must not react in any way.

    This, obviously, is not training the student in good communication. In good social communication, people do react to each other. If you don't, you are weird -- or a Scientologist. No, this is training auditors to never react to anything their "preclear" (the person getting auditing) says.

    TR1 has the students picking a phrase from a book (always "Alice in Wonderland") and saying it to the person so that it sounds "natural". At this point you can see that this is training "auditors" to pick up commands from some piece of paper and "sound natural" when giving the command to their preclear.

    And so on, if you want a full listing of these, just google "TRs Scientology".

    Anything in the category of "TRs" has to do with training Scientologists in special communication techniques. Not good communication, not social communication, but Scientology-style communication. It is quite different.

    By the time someone has completed the advanced TR courses, their social communication can be quite stilted and odd. They have forgotten how normal people communicate. You will often hear comments when people have just met a Scientologist. They comment on the "Scientology stare". The lack of reaction to anything is unsettling. This is, essentially, where most Scientologists lose their sense of humor. No reaction, to anything.

    In addition to the TRs for training auditors, Hubbard developed other TRs. For instance, there is a TR to train the Scientologist to lie convincingly. There is another to train Scientologists to avoid answering questions without seeming to. There are many more.

    Scientologists often brag that they are "masters of communication", but the type of communication they are "masters" of isn't anything to brag about, in my opinion.

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  75. Has there ever been a scientific evaluation done of Dianetics and its techniques? If so, is this available within the scientology organisation?

    ReplyDelete
  76. RE: Dianetics review

    When Dianetics was first introduced, there were quite a few doctors and scientists who were asked their opinions on this new "science".

    Their opinions were almost universally negative. In every test conducted by independent researchers, Dianetics completely failed to produce the promised results.

    See Wikipedia and lermanet for some nice references and quotes. These are probably what you're looking for.

    For this reason, since the 1950s, Hubbard and Scientology have totally forbidden any such testing or evaluation -- you can't fail tests that aren't done.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Two distinct questions, if I may:

    1. Apropos your discussion of scientology disallowing any scientific tests of its "processing," where do they get the IQ test that they always talk about? Do scientologists take the same textst over and over again to demonstrate their enhanced IQ?

    2. On another scientology message board, I just read a claim that scientology has plans to survive an apocalypse (presumeably at those remote underground CST bases) and emerge to re-populate the earth with scientologists. Is this true? Was that one of Hubbard's scenarios?

    ReplyDelete
  78. 1. I don't know where that IQ test comes from. There are several different versions (but essentially identical) of the test, none scientifically recognized as valid. Using a standard IQ test is simply not done in Scientology.

    Is the test, in any way, accurate as to estimating IQ? Since there is no independent testing or validation of Scientology's IQ test, it can only be called bogus.

    I really don't know what the CST bunkers are really all about. The story given out is that the "priceless" Scientology materials must be preserved against some planet-destroying event. So everything is preserved on platinum plates in nitrogen capsules or whatever.

    This is officially, what Hubbard said about this. Officially, he said nothing about using the bunkers for Scientologists.

    Yet ... why so much space? Really, this material doesn't require so much space. Why are they creating yet a third bunker? The shore story doesn't match what's going on. I have been told, but not by a reliable source, that Miscavige actually believes that some alien invasion is imminent, and that he, Tom Cruise and selected others will go hide when that happens.

    That seems pretty ridiculous, even for Miscavige. I'm really inclined to think that's not true, and mention it only because if is one possible explanation.

    On the other hand, it is quite possible that the bunkers are being built and prepared for some elite, chosen few Scientologists to "survive the coming apocalypse".

    It isn't something they would advertise.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Do scientologists really believe in all that space opera stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Re: Space opera stuff.

    Ironically, most Scientologists don't even know about that space opera stuff.

    They are not allowed to know about that stuff until "OT III", at which point they've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, and are pretty thoroughly indoctrinated.

    They are taught the space opera stuff is all lies. They are also taught that the information will kill them if they read it "before they are ready".

    It "isn't true" but it "will kill them" -- doesn't add up, but most still go along with it. It's the indoctrination.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Seems ironic that Scientology "the study of knowledge" will not allow SCIENCE - the systematic search for actual truth - to validate it with scientific techniques. I guess they justify this with "scientists are unworthy wogs" when in reality they are just covering up the fact that Scientology is as false a three-dollar bill. That would cost them clients, income and credibility, which appears to be the true bottom-line. It all lends deeper meaning to the term "science fiction."

    ReplyDelete
  82. It seems that the perfect question to ask a Scientologist who is attempting to introduce you to the subject is: "Show me the scientific evidence that what you are claiming works 100 percent of the time." If it is good enough for pharmaceutical companies to have to publish the science behind the claims for their drugs, it should be good enough for Scientology.

    ReplyDelete
  83. As a biologist, this fake science angle is interesting. Per a friend of mine, in the early days Hubbard asserted that Dianetics and Scientology were sciences but offered no scientific proof of his claims. Later he called Scientology a religion. Makes sense since a religion often requires faith with no proof. It allows Scientology to get away saying it "works" without having to show the scientific literature which proves it.

    ReplyDelete
  84. It seems to me that some smart, reasonably well-educated people get pulled into Scientology. Yet, there are so many things that Scientology presents to new recruits that scream "bogus": those phony IQ claims and personality charts, the quotes about how great scientology is that never say anything specific and are signed only with initials; much of the stuff in that "orientation" film ("you could blow your brains out..."); and Hubbard's own wildly extravagant claims for the import and effectiveness of Dianetics and Scientology. I assume these bright, educated people notice these things as they are being introduced to Scientology, and they may ask questions about them. How does the Church overcome their initial skepticism?

    ReplyDelete
  85. The standard church response to any questions or scepticism is a quote from Hubbard, "What is true is what you, yourself, have found to be true". They elaborate, "Don't believe us, see for yourself!"

    And sell them their next course, book or auditing session.

    Now, the very, very earliest material is carefully chosen to be the most agreeable and the most "workable" of all the Scientology materials. It is carefully chosen to be something that most people will find "true" for themselves.

    And so they agree. And so they take another course, buy another book or whatever. These also are some of the more agreeable parts of Scientology, and so it lures them in further.

    At this point, many start believing that they can get the promised gains. They buy into the promises that are never, ever delivered. Those that buy into it, will continue -- endlessly seeking those "wins". Those that don't buy into it (over 99% by statistic) drop out about then.

    It is a classic fraud, where the early results seem to "prove" that the later promises will be fulfilled. By the time it is obvious to a person that they are not making it they have invested so much time and money most just keep on going -- hoping that eventually they will "get their money's worth".

    ReplyDelete
  86. What exactly is dianetics?

    ReplyDelete
  87. There is a pretty good article in Wikipedia on Dianetics that can answer your basic questions about what is claimed and some of the controversy.

    It is very important to evaluate the rather extravagant claims for Dianetics with a check on reality.

    The end goal of Dianetics, "Clear", as defined by Hubbard, has never been attained by anyone. "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 person would do in half an hour, in ten or fifteen seconds." - Dianetics page 248

    This key failure tends to put a cloud over the whole subject.

    In addition, none of Hubbard's other claims for Dianetics have actually been proven -- only anecdotal evidence, and a lot of arm-waving, is available.

    In fact, the Church of Scientology adamantly refuses to participate in any activities designed to validate any of the claims of Dianetics. That, to me, is quite significant.

    Today, the Church of Scientology uses "Dianetics" as way to lure people into Scientology without using the word "Scientology" (which has become tainted by the exposure of their lies and questionable activities). For this reason, whatever you do, try to avoid the Church of Scientology. You can get any information you might need from other sources.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I've been following this story in LA of a disconnected (ex-CoS) mother who has flown in from England to try to see her Sea Org adult daughter who works at the Hollywood headquarters. They've had no contact for a decade or more. Apparently, the daughter was taken by fellow Sea Org'ers to the local police, where she told them she didn't want to see her mother at all and wished she'd go away. I know you can't answer this with any authority, but I'd be interested in your best guess; is this woman (the daughter) really convinced in her heart of hearts that she does not want to see her mother, or does she secretly wish she could make that connection but she is cowed by threats from her superiors? Did you know of similar situations when you were "in"?

    ReplyDelete
  89. While it is impossible to know the mindset of a specific person, Scientologists all share the same basic beliefs.

    Scientologists totally believe the physical universe is a horrible trap and that Scientology is the only way out of that trap and the only way to extremely high spiritual powers. Let me emphasize: The only way.

    Therefore, expelling someone from Scientology is, literally, a "fate worse than death". Without Scientology, they believe, they will be condemned to suffer and degrade forever.

    Therefore, Scientologists will actually give up anything and everything to avoid being expelled. Even family.

    But, even so, this cannot be easy for the poor girl. No matter what she deeply believes about Scientology, there is still, deep down, the love and the caring.

    This kind of thing continually tears Scientologists up. Most times, it is this cruelty by the church that finally wakes Scientologists up. But, in this case, the girl is too deeply indoctrinated to see how wrong this is.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I was wondering something. I think I read on this site that LRH had apparently destroyed the implant stations. Where did this data come from and how did he do it? Also, why is Hubbard so unclear as to what is supposedly going on around Earth? I read excerpts from his early 1950s lectures that Earth is a prison planet with implant stations in the pyrenees, africa, mongolia, mars and the moon. Later on in a late 1960s lecture he says that we are apart of the Espinol United Stars and that this sector has been completely abandoned and running wild ever since the last group was chased off mars. What is the story behind this?

    ReplyDelete
  91. All this information, or more accurately, all these science fiction stories, came from Hubbard's lectures. The early lectures were quite full of these types of stories, especially the PDC lectures.

    I don't think Hubbard ever said exactly how he "destroyed the implant stations". One is to assume he used his (non-existent) "OT powers".

    His various histories of planet Earth and "this sector of the universe" may conflict one with the other -- and do -- but they were only stories.

    Let's face it, who could ever disprove anything like that? Hubbard took science fiction and made it "real".

    ReplyDelete
  92. It seems pretty clear that the CoS keeps Scientologists from questioning Hubbard or church policy, trying even to stop that in the privacy of their thoughts. But I'm sure they wouldn't admit that publicly. Do they offer (or claim to offer) any opportunities (real or bogus) for followers to voice or discuss their doubts about the church?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Re: Opportunities for followers to voice or discuss their doubts about the church.

    Absolutely not!

    Neither real or bogus. Scientologists may not ever have any doubts.

    If they ever did, they would never be allowed to discuss it with anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Followup to the previous question about expressing doubts: I'd think the complete lack of liberty to dissent might be ok with the sea orgers, but I can't understand why "pulblic" Scientologists would go for it. Is this a pervasive issue among the public members? Does it come up in private conversations away from the church? Did you ever express doubts about the church or the "tech" when you were in? Thanks again for your answers.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Re: Doubts

    While it is possible for Scientologists to mildly grumble about some difficulties they might have with the church, they may never express any doubts about the tech itself.

    The. Tech. Is. Perfect!

    Anyone complaining about the tech IS EVIL!

    So, no matter what they experience, they never even think the tech is flawed.

    ReplyDelete
  96. What's the deal with getting every home that Hubbard owned restored and opened to the public? Do you know anything about this alleged project? I heard Miscavige even has a home at Gold Base all ready for Hubbard to live in once he returns from the dead?!

    ReplyDelete
  97. I think that the project to buy and restore every home Hubbard lived in is, on the surface, part of the project to deify Hubbard.

    But, realistically, it sure feels like just another way to pry more money from True Believers, and, at the same time, build up Miscavige's real estate portfolio.

    ReplyDelete
  98. I have a question about audio lectures. I listened to a few of them since I was curious. It just seemed to me like a bunch of boring rambling with maybe one or two points thrown in. How do Scientologists listen to all those lectures? Aren't there like hundreds of hours worth of this stuff to listen to?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Re: Hubbard's tape lectures.

    LOL! Yes, there are hundreds, if not thousands of hours of taped lectures. Some are more interesting, or more entertaining than others. Hubbard could be a rather entertaining speaker at times. And very boring at other times.

    I'm laughing, because one of the important early skills a Scientologist learns in studying Scientology is how to stay awake while listening to lecture after lecture. You had to, because you were tested on your "understanding and duplication" of each lecture when you finished. It's a learned skill.

    Usually, the actual points being made were very few, once you got those points, you could pretty much ignore the rest and still pass the checks. Hubbard's digressions and repetitions are well known. In fact, the true skill is weeding out the "important" facts from all the digressions -- and staying awake.

    Even so, some Scientologists take a long, long time to get through a one-hour lecture and pass the subsequent check.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Hey Bill, its Red.

    Anonymous is trying to put together a list of all Miscaviges squirreling. Can you help? Just a list of altered material would be fine.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Hey Red,

    I don't have such a list. There are quite a number of sites that have documented Miscavige's alterations, both critical sites and Freezone. I believe there has been so much altered now, the analysis of the alterations in the just last year would be massive.

    Also, not part of specific policies and bulletins, there is the "tech advices" from Int. that have altered the emphasis of much of the tech. I'd love to see those "advices" leaked.

    I haven't heard, but I suspect that there are instructions that specific people are never, ever going to be allowed to progress "up the Bridge" -- people like any ex-S.O. -- and, I'm sure, anyone who was once "declared SP" or on the RPF. I'd love to see those instructions leaked as well.

    In these cases, it isn't the actual tech that was altered, it is the intention, and how, when and to whom the tech is applied.

    Unfortunately, I don't have this data. I rely on other data repositories, which undoubtedly, you already know about.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Isn't dianetics just regression thereapy? Why can't you just do it yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Re: Dianetics vs. regression therapy

    Indeed, this is undoubtedly where Hubbard got the idea. I'm not sure one can do regression therapy on oneself, but I don't know.

    The major difference, I think, is that Dianetics allows for regression into "past lives", for what that's worth.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I have a few questions. The first is what is your opinion of the study tech?

    The second question is about the books. Do you think they are intentionally written in a confusing way?

    Where does the auditing high come from? Is it from the machine current ?

    ReplyDelete
  105. Thanks for your questions.

    First: Study tech. I've discussed this before. I think that experience has shown it to be very mediocre "technology". I've seen many Scientologists become completely useless because of study tech. They stop reading for fun, because they have become so obsessed with defining words -- and it is so tedious to look up words the Hubbard way.

    There is nothing wrong with using a dictionary and defining words you don't know and need to know, but Hubbard's study tech is 'way over the top. It may improve some people's study habits, but, in my experience, it has ruined more than helped. It has been used, and evaluated, in many schools and by many educators. It was found flawed. It was found quite a bit less effective than other tried-and-true teaching methods.

    Second: Hubbard's books. I obviously can't speak to Hubbard's intentions, but he was selling something in his books that really didn't do what he said it did. So, he couldn't be straightforward about it, since there was a lot of make-it-up-sell-it going on. So, yes, I think being vague and a bit confusing was intentionally built in.

    Third: The "high" from auditing. Someday, someone should do some research about this. I would be fascinated to find out myself. Is it caused by the electrical current from the E-Meter? Don't think so. However, there is quite a bit of bio-feedback happening here: The person gets a certain feeling, a mental and physical feeling, and the auditor says "Your needle is floating" -- and that's obviously "good". This happens again and again, and the person learns, really, how to re-create and even enhance those feelings. Eventually, people learn how to "turn on a floating needle" at will (which is quite handy in getting through the "sec checks").

    But what actually causes it? I think it is related to "feeling good", the person thinks of something nice or they have some realization about something and they feel good about it -- and their "needle floats". Is it related to hypnotism? It certainly may be related to the repetition of the commands and the intimacy of the session -- a person easily gets into a different state of mind.

    But it would be interesting to see some research into it.

    ReplyDelete
  106. What is "The Birthday Game"?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Re: The "Birthday Game"

    Back in the 1970s, it was customary for the various churches, missions and even Scientologists to send Hubbard presents on his birthday. Each year the various presents were becoming more elaborate, expensive and complicated. Given that staff have never been paid very much, this was becoming quite a burden every year. Note that this was the time period when Hubbard was "hiding on the high seas", and this kind of traffic to his ship was drawing unwanted attention, and the various presents were taking up a lot of space in the limited space on board.

    For these, or some other reason, Hubbard decided to end the practice. He said what he wanted for his birthday "was expansion" -- and devised this complicated "game" where all the churches and missions would compete to "give Hubbard the best expansion" -- and the "Birthday Game" was born.

    You can Google "Scientology Birthday Game" for more information.

    Like everything else in Scientology, this has not resulted in anything good. The "expansion" has been false, the results have been temporary, and the collapse of the church has been hastened. The various winners are now much smaller than when this "game" was started. It is a lot of stress on staff without producing anything good for the public.

    As usual.

    But, at least, it became much easier for Hubbard to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Has the church always had high-pressure sales tactics? I once wanted to take a course, but the pushy nature really turned me off. I was just wondering if it was any different back in the 70's or 60's.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Re: High pressure sales.

    No, it wasn't always that way. In the 60s, it was pretty laid back about "sales" -- hard to believe today, when money-money-money and super-high pressure seems so intrinsic to the whole thing.

    No, back in the 50s and 60s, if you came in, great. If you hung around, great. If you bought something, great. If you didn't buy something, great. You could hang around and help out, learn stuff and, really, not buy a damn thing. But prices were much, much lower, so you likely did buy something.

    The super-hard sell came in in the 70s. Came and stayed. And with that came higher and higher and higher prices as well. That's when the attention focused on money. It was Hubbard's idea all the way.

    The big problem that engendered was having massive amounts "on account" that people could ask for back. So much money was coming in that delivery couldn't keep up.

    This was "solved" by Miscavige with his pure donations -- for which no service was owed -- so that the high pressure money collection could continue.

    As time has gone on, the high-pressure sales techniques have been refined to a high art. The attention on money in the church today is unbelievable, and quite disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Is an "authorized" biography of Hubbard really supposed to be coming out, or is this a lost cause?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Re: "Authorized" Hubbard biography.

    LOL! Good question! The idea, now in progress for something like 40 years, was that the church would produce the definitive biography of this "great man", with full facts and evidence of all his claimed accomplishments.

    It would definitely be a "best seller" with Scientologists. Obviously, the problems is with the "facts". For some 99% of Hubbard's claimed accomplishments, there not only is no evidence, but often the available evidence, including Hubbard's own diaries contradicts Hubbard's stories.

    The current idea, I believe, is to create a biography around the facts, filling in the places where there are no firm documents with fluff and fiction, and carefully ignoring the disreputable parts of Hubbard's actual life.

    That is, sort of an expanded version of the "LRH biographer's" presentations and the "Ron Mag" stories -- lots of fabrication and façade, carefully avoiding things that can be factually disproven (meaning most of Hubbard's stories).

    The real problem I see with this whole thing is the growing awareness, at least outside of the Scientology bubble, that Hubbard was very, very full of it. Samples of Hubbard's claims and the factual refutation of everything he claimed is rampant. Any "good" biography of Hubbard would be met with wide derision -- and even more exposure of his lies with irrefutable facts.

    I think what Miscavige really wants to do is go ahead and admit that Hubbard was a liar and a fraud, while he then becomes "Source", "corrects" all of Hubbard's errors, and "saves Scientology". That is, I believe, Miscavige's fondest dream.

    ReplyDelete
  112. In 1967, Colin Wilson published a book called The Mind Parasites, in which a group of scientists discovered, at least in the first part of the book, that their minds were inhabited by a swarm of critters that sucked out their energy and stunted human potential. They also found that, as they freed themselves from this influence, they developed powers such as telekinesis.

    My question is: When were the OT documents written?

    I know that the idea of humanity being victimized and limited in potential isn't new, but I was surprised at how similar the book was to the cliff notes version I know of the OT explanation for the universe as it is and the model for human growth potential.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Re: Colin Wilson's The Mind Parasites

    What an interesting idea! Obviously, Wilson didn't base the idea on Hubbard's OT material, but did Hubbard use Wilson's? Actually, it appears that Wilson got the idea from H.P. Lovecraft.

    The similarities are, to my eyes, only superficial since the descriptions and details are substantially different.

    But...

    The whole idea of people being enslaved by invisible parasites is a very, very old science fiction idea. Certainly Hubbard was well acquainted with that basic storyline. The whole OT III story concept is definitely not original to Hubbard.

    His bit of originality was that the parasites are not evil, but are, themselves, victims of the "evil villain". That is, as far as I know, his own unique, but less dramatic, twist.

    ReplyDelete
  114. What initially attracted you to scientology, what kept you in and what got you out?

    ReplyDelete
  115. What attracted me initially? Hubbard claimed to have all the answers. Whatever problem I, or anyone, had would be completely handled by Scientology. The initial bits of technology appeared to work, so I thought the rest of Scientology would also work.

    What kept me in? I've covered this extensively on this blog: Why Do Scientologists Believe?, all the Thought Control articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and others.

    What got me out? That also is much of what I've been writing about. It makes no sense! If you just look at what's going on in the church, it makes no sense. It's just wrong. Once you actually look at it, you can't close your eyes again -- and then you're done, you're out.

    ReplyDelete
  116. How is the Purif feeling inscribed in people? By this I mean the feeling one has that there are chemicals in the body one can feel and one must run out in the sauna. I remember I used to feel this way a long time ago when I was involved in the CofS and I never questioned it, but since then I have. I know a guy who takes psychotropic drugs everyday and when he exercises and sweats he never feels like he is having some sort of drug flashback.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Re: Purif feeling.

    I think it is normal for people to feel "off" once in a while, or all the time. I think that's what you're talking about.

    That's the thing with Scientology, they take all the normal feelings, ideas, problems, quirks, and say those "are problems" and they have the only solution. They take your money, they apply their "solution" and then say you're "cured". You're not supposed to notice that you feel pretty much the same after you've been "cured" as when you started.

    As far as the Purif goes, and "sweating causing flashbacks", medical professionals say that there is no actual physiological basis for the idea of toxins and drugs being stored in the body -- or for their being released through the Purif's regimen (or just sweating). From what I've been told, actual, independent tests have shown the the Purif does not get rid of any toxins.

    So, what your friend reports seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    ReplyDelete
  118. When do most people leave Scientology? Is it after OT 3? Do most people get angry when the reach OT 3 and find out about Xenu?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Re: Leaving Scientology

    LOL! You'd think That OT III would do it, wouldn't you? Indeed, a number of people do leave because of that, but really not that many.

    You see, people do not get the "confidential information" until they are ready -- which means they are so deeply into Scientology that they will, usually, accept the OT III story when they get there.

    Factually, most people "leave" Scientology after the first book, the first service, the first lecture. That is, most people don't get in.

    The attrition is biggest in the early steps, when the prices increase dramatically after the cheap introductory stuff and the results are ... less dramatic. Big cost, little or no results = people don't continue.

    Following that initial shake up, those who continue are the hard-core True Believers, and they pretty much stick with it. This, by statistic, less than 1% of those who bought a book or took some service.

    After that, it all depends on when the person wakes up and realizes that something is wrong. I don't have any hard data, but my gut feeling is that there is no specific point where this happens, it's different for each person.

    ReplyDelete
  120. In your opinion, what is the single most effective way to wake up a Scientologist from his thought control? I know there isn't a "one-shot Clear" that would work on every Scientologist. I am just asking what action works more than most other actions in waking them up?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Single most effective way to wake up a Scientologist...

    I wish there was, but the "wake up call" is going to be different for each person.

    It may be finding out that one bit of information that cannot be explained away, or being forced to disconnect from family, or ... who knows?

    I do know that the person has to make that first step, that first realization, that first step-back-and-really-look. You can't force it on someone -- they're proofed against that kind of "attack".

    But making the data available, keeping it available, making sure the true facts about Scientology are well documented are all very valuable actions. Once someone steps a bit back from the bubble, they will be hungry for true facts.

    Yeah, a "one shot Clear" to wake Scientologists up would be great. Not going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  122. What happens to an org if they have a week of bad statistics?

    ReplyDelete
  123. What happens when an org (church/mission) has a week of down stats?

    Well, first, understand that everything is staticized, and that everyone is assigned their own statistics that they are "responsible for".

    Each person is assigned a condition based on how their stats did. Usually "Normal" if up, "Affluence" if more up, "Emergency" if down and "Danger" if more down. This gets confusing when some stats are up and others are down -- what condition is the person assigned?

    However they work that out, a person's pay is adjusted depending on their assigned condition -- but at that low a pay, the difference is just pennies.

    But that really doesn't answer your question. What happens to the org? Well, the org is assigned a condition based on just a few of the statistics. As you might guess "Gross Income" is the most important.

    In a local church, if the Gross Income is down, it means no pay (or very, very little), it means extra long hours -- and, since most staff have "outside jobs" this inevitably cuts into their sleep. And, of course, down Gross Income means lots of "outflow" (phone calls, letters, email) to Scientologists to get more money.

    If Gross Income is up, even though the other major statistics are down, things are pretty good.

    In the higher orgs, where the staff is Sea Org, down Gross Income means things get nasty. Of course no, or low, pay and long, long hours (20+ hours a day). It means rice and beans are the only meals. Any time off is cancelled. It means "harsh Ethics", which means punishments are frequent and worse. It means no breaks and minimal (like 15 minute) meal breaks -- or just eat at your desk.

    Of course, at the Hemet compound where Int Management is, these are the conditions every day of the year -- everyone is treated like dirt all the time, any up statistics are ignored. But that's just Miscavige's method of "management".

    ReplyDelete
  124. Thank you for your very informative web site. I live in Los Angeles, and I drive down L Ron Hubbard Way (next to "Big Blue") from time to time, just out of curiosity about the Scientologists. The last two or three times I've gone by, I've noticed that quite a few of the folks walking around were wearing clothing with a big yellow logo that advertised "IAS." I assume that most people at that complex during weekdays are Sea Org members (and I usually see lots of what I presume to be Sea Org uniforms being worn). Is the IAS is an organization of "public" scientologists, or does it also include Sea Org folks in its ranks? Do you think this shift to "IAS"-wear signifies anything? And what do IAS members do, anyway? Thanks in advance for your reply.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Re: IAS

    IAS stands for "International Association of Scientologists". It is a fund raising organization. All active Scientologists are required to join and donate to this organization. Donations used to be voluntary, but, today, any Scientologist who wants to take further services will find that large donations to the IAS are, in effect, mandatory.

    The many people wearing IAS shirts on L. Ron Hubbard Way would indicate that there is a Big Push for all Scientologists to donate more to the IAS. There may even be a Big IAS Event coming up as part of this.

    It's all about money. That's the only thing the IAS is concerned with: More money to the church.

    Some of the money collected by the IAS is used to fund out-of-court settlements for people harmed by the church, and some pays for the private investigators and lawyers who harass critics -- but there is absolutely no public accounting for those funds. Who knows what it's used for?

    ReplyDelete
  126. What are super power buildings and ideal orgs?

    ReplyDelete
  127. Super Power building:

    There is only one "Super Power Building". It is in Clearwater, Florida. Many years ago, Hubbard claimed to have developed a very special set of rundowns (processes and exercises) which he dubbed "Super Power". He claimed that these were so super-wonderful, that they would, all by themselves, enable the Scientology "perfect world": a Cleared Planet. The Super Power Building was allegedly the location where this service would be delivered.

    In actual fact, it was really going to be expansion room for the "Flag Land Base" (upper level church) in Clearwater.

    But there was and is a problem. The Super Power Rundowns cannot be delivered. They haven't ever been made to work the way they were supposed to work. So, the church can't ever complete the Super Power Building, because people would expect Super Power to be delivered. It's a mess -- and the building stands, incomplete after 10 years.

    Ideal Orgs:

    As written by Hubbard, an ideal org was his idea of the way a local church should look. It should be clean and well cared for. It should look good, upscale. Actually, Hubbard never intended this to be expensive.

    This has been completely perverted by the current leader Miscavige to mean buying big, usually historic, buildings (for many millions), spending millions more to renovate them top to bottom to extremely high levels of opulence, install very expensive displays and interactive video stations and so on.

    What has happened in reality is that local Scientologists have been squeezed for every last dime to buy these big, expensive buildings -- and most local churches are stuck on that step - the local publics tapped out - not enough money to buy the historic building, and no more money available.

    Some have been able to raise the money to buy a big building, but then are tapped out and can't raise the money to do the multi-million dollar renovations.

    The very few local churches that have done it all, end up with a very large building and nobody coming in. The cost of heating, cooling, lighting, etc. the bigger building is very hard on these churches.

    The end result of Miscavige's "Ideal Org Program" is to suck all available money from Scientologists into these silly buildings. This means the Scientologists cannot afford to take any services. And that means the local church doesn't bring in any income.

    The new buildings look like expansion, but, in reality are just speeding up its already impending collapse.

    ReplyDelete
  128. What is Spiritologie and its take over of Scientology by the reincarnated LRH in Germany as the returned SOURCE .

    ReplyDelete
  129. Re: Spiritologie

    LOL! This is the first I've heard of this. At first glance -- it's a great April Fools joke.

    If it isn't a joke, ... well, the world is a wild and wonderful place. Gotta love it.

    ReplyDelete
  130. To find out about Spiritologie and its recent activities in Germany go to www.ivymag.org ivy mag links . There is a link to Spiritologie ,click on it and you will find out it's not an April Fools joke.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Re: Spiritologie

    Um... yeah.

    While the whole thing is amazingly vague, it appears that a person, born in 1966, is claiming to be the reincarnation of Hubbard -- who died in 1986. Wow!

    Once you take logic and reason out of the picture, there are no limits to what you can claim.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Thanks Bill for your comments re:Claim of Hubbard reincarnation .It is not only the numbers that don't fit....Have a look at the other Claims that group is making .Looking forward to your comments.plical

    ReplyDelete
  133. Re: Spiritologie

    Look, this kind of thing has been happening, and will undoubtedly continue to happen in the Freezone -- and even within the Church of Scientology.

    I knew some Scientologists who firmly believed that David Miscavige was LRH! That's even more bizarre than this Spiritologie business.

    These types of claims and ideas are predicated on certain agreed-upon assumptions that are contradicted by facts.

    Now, I don't particularly mind bizarre beliefs, I kind of enjoy finding out about them, but when they ignore well-known facts, that's annoying.

    Let's just discuss facts. The last years of Hubbard's life were really miserable. He was sick. He had bad allergies. He was in pain. He was on medication. He was in hiding, on the run from the law. At the end of his life, he was betrayed by those he trusted. And much more. It was really, really bad.

    While these facts were hidden from Scientologists, they are facts, they are true.

    And what does this mean? Hubbard was sick, had allergies, was in pain. That means he wasn't Clear by his own definition.

    Hubbard was on the run, was hiding, and was ultimately betrayed. That means he wasn't OT by his own definitions.

    All those claims about Hubbard coming back are based on the agreed-upon assumption that he was "OT". The facts say that he wasn't OT.

    Period.

    Not that facts will ever change these people's belief. They will make up some rationalization on how Hubbard pretended to be sick, or how "it's all lies".

    They can continue in their fantasy world only by dint of continuous effort to deny facts. I feel sorry for people who deny reality and then expect to travel to "truth". It doesn't work that way.

    So, no, I'm not going to dig deeper into the activities and claims of Spiritologie. There is no value or sense in looking further. I already know they are travelling in the wrong direction to find truth.

    ReplyDelete
  134. What do Scientologists believe happens to Thetans between leaving the body and reincarnating in another body? Does it go somewhere, meet other thetans, get judged, etc.? Does the thetan freely choose the body it will occupy?

    ReplyDelete
  135. Re: Between lives

    I actually answered this as part of an earlier comment. I said:

    LRH had a bit to say about "between lives", he said that there were "implant stations" that everyone is forced to go to, where you were given amnesia and then ordered back to pick up a new body. According to LRH, people were programmed to go to these implant stations by prior implants. He claimed there were implant stations on Earth, on the Moon, on Mars and elsewhere. Ron also claimed that he had destroyed all the nearby "implant stations" so that people wouldn't be implanted any more. He claimed that any "purposes" people have were the result of these implants and were false.

    Outside of compulsions from these implants, yes, a thetan has free will in choosing the next body. According to Scientology, it could be human, or it could be something else, a cat or other animal, a tree, a rock. Also, some might choose to "haunt" a location, like a graveyard or house.

    ReplyDelete
  136. I saw a few videos of protests on youtube and noticed on each one that scientologists were taking pictures of the protesters. Do they keep those pictures on file or something?

    ReplyDelete
  137. Re: Pictures

    Yes, the Church of Scientology takes many pictures of protesters. There are two primary reasons. First, of course, they do pore over these photos in an attempt to identify each person. The photos are not only stored locally, but are sent up to Int. Management where they are scrutinized again and the "best" ones are forwarded to the P.I.s.

    However, because the church is getting a bit understaffed, there are far more photos than they can effectively study.

    Which leads to the second major reason: Intimidation. Why else would they keep taking photos, protest after protest, of the same people.

    Really, the whole "taking pictures" isn't effective. 1) They've already got photos of everyone, 2) The protesters are not intimidated, 3) If the church can identify someone -- then what? Their efforts to "retaliate" are pretty impotent, and getting less so every day.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Where are all the OT, there is an opportunity right now to demonstrate all the fabulous OT powers by helping to free the Captain of the Container Ship from the captivity of the Pirates in the Indian Ocean . This would be a world shaking action and make people aware of the ABILITIES claimed by Scientology technology.....

    ReplyDelete
  139. I have a question and please be as detailed as possible. Do you ever feel discriminated against being a Scientologist? If so in what way? Do you feel like people change their opion of you when they find out you are a Scientologist?

    ReplyDelete
  140. Re: Discrimination

    I do not currently practice or believe in Scientology, but I can answer your question based on my many, many years inside Scientology.

    Scientologists are told, again and again, that they are superior people. Hubbard dubbed this state "Homo Novis". Scientologists, as a rule, totally believe this.

    Therefore, Scientologists believe that they are attacked (if they are attacked) because the "lesser beings" are jealous -- or just plain evil. Scientologists firmly believe that Scientology itself is attacked by the degraded elements of society that profit from human misery.

    So, attacks tend to reinforce this idea of superiority, not inferiority.

    However, it isn't quite that clear-cut. When a Scientologist runs into criticism, they automatically run away and seek to cut themselves off from the source of "bad news". They are required to do this by the church. They call this bad news or criticism "entheta" and they must avoid entheta at all costs.

    The behavior results in Scientologists gradually and rather thoroughly becoming cut off from the outside world, non-Scientology family, non-Scientology friends.

    As a result, they tend to avoid mentioning they are Scientologists because they fear they will hear something negative, and then would have to further isolate themselves.

    In my experience (but this is before much of the weird information got broadly released) people didn't much care if I was a Scientologist or not -- saying I was didn't much change things. I generally avoided the subject so that I wouldn't be forced to disconnect from everybody.

    Today, with all the jokes, parodies and "secret scriptures" out in the world, I suspect that Scientologists are feeling a bit defensive about the whole thing -- but I guarantee that they will continue to hold fast to their "superiority" over the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  141. What is the marcabian confederacy??

    ReplyDelete
  142. Re: Marcabian Confederacy

    Wikipedia is your friend.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Hi. I just watched the leaked video of the LRH birthday event 2009. They use a lot of animation, with Star Wars-style flying vessels, glistening robots, etc. Is there some symbolism in their graphics that Scientologists see that I (a non-Scientologist) would miss? Is that characteristic CoS style of graphic art (lots of shiny things, lots of gold, lots of swirls) something that Scientologists think or talk about?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Re: The events design

    Not really. This isn't a Scientology thing, it's a David Miscavige thing.

    Miscavige has absolutely no taste in design, but fancies himself to be an absolute master. He favors the gaudy, the space-opera, the tawdry, flashy, but ultimately very stupid-looking designs.

    As far as I know, most Scientologists grit their teeth through such displays. They really are quite awful (but don't tell Miscavige).

    It's all part of the flash that's supposed to distract the audience from the fact that -- there are no facts.

    ReplyDelete
  145. I'm loving your blog by the way, but I have a question about the tone scale.

    I really just don't get it. I've heard it described in various ways, like the higher up you are the more alive you are. But the order just doesn't make sense, classically "good" things like sympathy are lower on the scale than obviously bad things. And some things are missing entirely.

    Assigning values to emotional states on an ascending scale just seems so ludicrous to me. I've also heard it's only really bad if you're "stuck" at a certain point, but then why assign value at all?

    So the real questions:

    What do Scientologists actually believe about the tone scale? And what is its purpose?

    Thank you. -- CR

    ReplyDelete
  146. Re: Tone Scale

    Thanks, I really appreciate the feedback and I'm glad you're enjoying my blog.

    I understand your confusion about Hubbard's Tone Scale. It is strange. However, Scientologists really do believe it is accurate and complete. Literally, Scientologists believe that, if an emotion isn't listed on Hubbard's Expanded Tone Scale, then that emotion isn't real. Missing emotions? Not important.

    The values are, supposedly, wavelengths. According to Hubbard. Wavelengths of what is never fully explained. Supposedly, if you keep going into the higher frequencies of "energy", eventually, you will get to emotions. Don't ask me to explain that, there is no real sense to it.

    Most people do recognize that if a person is "stuck" at a specific emotion, it is bad -- always crying, always angry, always manic. That's obvious. Nothing new there.

    But that really doesn't address your main confusion. Why? And why exactly those emotions, that order and those values.

    Well, because Hubbard said so, that's why.

    The basic idea behind Hubbard's Tone Scale is control. Scientologists believe that, if you can spot a person's Tone Level, you can then control them!Much of Scientology is about control and the Tone Scale is just one more mechanism used by Scientologists in their ongoing attempt to control people. They believe that, if they know your Tone Level, all they have to do is pretend the emotion 1/2 to 1 "full tone" above your emotion to control you, or 1/2 to 1 "full tone" below your emotion to "cave you in".

    Here is where those seemingly arbitrary values come into play. Scientologists use those values to determine the "1/2 to 1 full tone" for control purposes.

    It's all about control.

    Does it work? Scientologists believe it does. If you saw John Sweeney's exposé of Scientology on Panorama, you saw Scientologists using the Tone Scale to make John blow up. Apparently, there is something that works there.

    But how sick is that -- using emotion to control people? Well, that's Scientology!

    If one is going to be talking to a Scientologist, it is good to understand this basic fact: The Scientologist is trying to control you with various tricks. This is what they learn. This is what they do.

    If you know that, their tricks will have less effect. If you've studied the Tone Scale, you can even see exactly what they are trying to do. It can be very amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Thank you very much for your quick response. It makes MUCH more sense now in the context of how Scientologists use it: for controlling people.

    "if an emotion isn't listed on Hubbard's Expanded Tone Scale, then that emotion isn't real. Missing emotions? Not important"

    That's just disturbing.

    You touched on it a bit, but I just remembered, this tone scale helps Scientologists to fake emotions. The more I think about it the more that disturbs me. Yet another tool they use to lie to people.

    ReplyDelete
  148. How best should those who wish to educate a brainwashed cultist approach in order to have a civil discussion. Are there any valid FOs declaring the entirety of Anonymous suppressive, or is it reasonable to assume that you could enter into a civil discussion while masked without fear of attack? In addition, what would be most effective to draw their attention to and instill Doubt, that oh-so-evil feeling?

    ReplyDelete
  149. This is the primary question, isn't it? How to get through to a brainwashed Scientologist?

    I have several thoughts on this:

    First, it may be impossible to actually have a "civil" conversation with a Scientologist while masked, because they have been thoroughly lied to about Anonymous. To a True Believer, Anonymous are mercenaries in the Great Evil Conspiracy. Scientologists are already programmed to be quite antagonistic.

    While such things are "secret", I suspect there is an "EO" (Ethics Order) that declares "Anonymous" a Suppressive Group. If so, then, technically, no Scientologist could talk with anyone who was obviously a member of Anonymous.

    However, the messages are getting through. In the last year, according to some independent surveys, Scientology has lost well over 50% of their membership -- just in that short a time. This is huge! To confirm this, there are reports of newly out Scientologists almost every day. Indications are that this trend is, in fact, increasing.

    So what is being done is working.

    But which message is getting through? I think it varies. I've been writing various messages over the years which I think are effective -- but it's hard to be sure.

    But one thing you can be very certain of: Deep down, Scientologists know there are problems in the Church of Scientology. Deep down, Scientologists know they are not happy. Deep down, most Scientologists are becoming quite uncomfortable with what Miscaviage is doing.

    If you can get into a conversation with a Scientologist you should keep in mind that there is no value in attacking Scientologists personally, or their beliefs -- it just plays into the "We're victims of religious bigotry" drama. But information about Miscavige, about the abuse, about the crimes -- that just might get through.

    Asking, "Are you getting what you expected from Scientology?" "Are you happy right now?" might strike a chord, but then you might get the auto-reponder kicking in, "I'm happy-I'm happy-I'm happy".

    In any case, whatever you are doing is working -- obviously. The Church of Scientology is collapsing. Miscavige is getting very, very desperate.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Just Bill,
    I have really enjoyed reading your blog and I hope that the many repressed scientologists find their way here. While I stay very active reading about Scientology (never been in), have picketed with my local cell (many problems there), my one question is: why is this the world's problem? I am not asking sarcastically and I am grateful that anons worldwide have been relentless, yet, I have to wonder, why should I care? You had a crackpot, sci fi writer that started a religion to get rich and thousands of gullible people followed. I think the main thing I worry about is what will happen to the many uneducated, unskilled scis when their "church" finally collapses. Also, how on earth do they think they can be "special" as scientologists when anybody with a few bucks can be "special" also? Do they ever ask themselves this question? I can go from being a successful, happy, have no debt, no stress wog to being a poor, repressed sci in an instant. Why do they not see this?

    ReplyDelete
  151. You have covered quite a range of questions here.

    First, although the Church of Scientology is quite small, and is shrinking, they have had an influence far beyond their size -- mainly because of a highly litigious nest of lawyers and quite a large fund of cash. These things allowed their abuse to spread rather far. Add to this their abuse of human rights, their suppression of free speech, their restrictions on freedom of religion -- and this makes it worthy of world-wide attention.

    When the world pays attention to highly abusive, but small, groups, it keeps these groups from becoming large, highly abusive groups. It isn't important that everybody works on this cause, it is only important that some people do.

    If you care about human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and this specific group's abuses seem significant enough to you, then you should join in, in some way. If not, hopefully some other worthy cause will earn your support.

    As to why don't Scientologists see what's really going on? Because they are carefully taught to not look. See my essays on Scientology Thought Control. Scientology is self-selecting. If a person accepts Scientology Thought Control, then they will become a Scientologist and a True Believer. If someone does not accept the Thought Control, they join the 99.9% that looked at, but rejected Scientology.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Thank you for the answer Just Bill. Like usual, you have answered very eloquently and I will stay active protecting my home turf :)

    ReplyDelete
  153. I've heard good things about the communications course. What would you recommend as an alternative to that?

    ReplyDelete
  154. Re: Communications

    I'm glad to hear that you are looking at alternatives. I assume you've "heard good things" about Scientology's Communication Course from Scientologists. They do not realize the course actually destroys the ability to have normal conversations.

    The Communication Course is not about communication but about control -- and it actually does a pretty lousy job of teaching that.

    There is an unbelievable amount of information out there on how to communicate better. There are books that don't come with a cult attached. Go to a large bookstore and browse a bit. Find a book that makes sense to you. Even simpler, browse through various web sites on the subject.

    Here is a quick tip for being a better conversationalist: Learn to listen and be interested in other people. Stop thinking about what you're going to say and, instead, think about what the other person is saying. Become interested. Ask questions.

    There, I've taught you a lot more than you'll ever learn from Scientology's Communication Course. No charge!

    ReplyDelete
  155. Thanks! I was mostly interested in the confronting exercises, any tips on that???

    ReplyDelete
  156. Well, if what you want to do is experience specifically the Scientology TRs, that's different.

    Check out the Freezone, someone there has whatever the Church of Scientology has, cheaper and likely less of a cult attached to it.

    Or just read the instructions and do 'em with a friend.

    ReplyDelete
  157. I currently have a friend who's a public Scientologist. I'll try and be non-specific about their details.

    They are a successful professional who I think is currently still at the beginning stages of their involvement. They are currently taking some Dianetics stuff at the local Org and has taken some courses on the Freewinds. They got in through their ex, who was an OT something or other, and has been involved for a few years, though only heavily recently as their employment situation improved.

    From the brief conversations I've had with them about Scientology, they insist that they are happy with it, even though it always seems like a forced "happy-happy-happy" response. This friend knows I'm not a fan of Scientology, after all.

    My question is what can this friend expect? Their personal financial situation is going well, and I expect that they will soon be one of the wealthier members of the Org.

    I'm not looking to save them or anything, because I realize that's pretty much something they have to do on their own. I'm just wondering what they can expect?

    ReplyDelete
  158. What can a wealthier Scientologist expect?

    The Church of Scientology is all about the money, as I am sure you know.

    This means that they treasure these wealthier members.

    While the normal members might get some pretty heavy pressure to pay and pay and pay, the wealthy members are handled with much more care. The pressure is still there, and the desired result is still to squeeze as much money as possible from them, but it will usually be handled with more tact.

    Wealthy Scientologists are not nickel-and-dimed, they get royal treatment, glossy promotional material, genteel presentations, a lot of bowing and scraping, with the aim of extracting a multi-million dollar "donation" (for which they get "Super-Duper Patron with Really Keen Honors" status - or something like that).

    Your friend is in for some very nice treatment -- and will undoubtedly fork over quite a bit of money in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  159. A quick question, keeping in mind that I understand that Clear doesn't exist, so from a factual standpoint, I know the answer. I'd just like to know what Scientoligsts believe.

    In Dianetics, Hubbard describes homosexuality as being an aberration.

    Maybe I misunderstand the idea, but a Clear is a person who is free of aberrations. So, according to Scientologists, can a person be Clear and a homosexual?

    And if I asked that question to an active Scientologist, what would their likely answer be?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  160. According to Hubbard and all of Scientology, there could never be a Clear homosexual. Period.

    As you pointed out, according to Scientology, homosexuality is an aberration, and, therefore, it is "cured" through Clearing.

    This is exactly what Scientologists believe and would say.

    ReplyDelete
  161. A couple questions.

    1) How the hell did you read Dianetics? I tried reading it, it was so boring!

    2) Also regarding study tech, how would that work if one used those techniques in law, medicine, engineering. It seems those techniques would stretch getting a degree in those areas by YEARS.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Re: Questions

    1) LOL! Well, when you are a True Believer, you just push on through. It couldn't be boring so you must have a "misunderstood word"! To give up and admit it is boring is ... just not allowed!

    2) Indeed! Study Tech does that for every subject studied. For most people, applying Study Tech eventually destroys their ability to study any subject. Medicine, engineering, law, anything with a large body of knowledge and specialized terminology becomes, with Study Tech, an impossible quagmire.

    I think I've mentioned before that I know quite a few Scientologists who have simply given up any reading at all, it became so "hard" with Study Tech.

    But that still isn't the main flaw in Study Tech. The main flaw is that, via Study Tech, one no longer thinks for oneself. Studying an important subject using Study Tech ensures one becomes a complete robot in that subject -- not what I'd want in a doctor or engineer!

    ReplyDelete
  163. Also, why do they say what's true for you is true for you, but always refer to dictionaries as the ultimate truth?

    ReplyDelete
  164. Scientologists say "what is true is what is true for you" for two reasons. First, it is used to ignore reality: Truth isn't what others see but what you believe to be true.

    Second, it is used to pretend that Scientologists have a choice of whether to believe or not. Of course, they do not have such a choice in reality -- belief is required.

    Scientologists do not think of dictionaries as the "ultimate truth", in actual fact. Dictionaries are merely a reference. Only Hubbard is the ultimate truth. Hubbard often redefined words -- and those redefinitions always take precedence.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Let's say I met 2 guys in Clearwater FL in the entertainment business, seem like sincere, up-front guys. Say I paid them some money and began working on an artistic project. Then say I googled their names and found a disturbing amount of information linking them to CoS. What should I do? How should I feel? Can I trust these guys? Why did they have to be Scientologists???

    ReplyDelete
  166. Hey Bill been following your blog for a while just like to say thanks very much. My question is while I was picketing outside local org with few others one of the workers started telling people that we were being paid to be there. Do you know if they all do this or was this just desperation from the guy?

    ReplyDelete
  167. What do you know about "The Creed of the Church of Scientology"? I've only heard about it fairly recently, but Scientology's overview dvd would have you believe it was written up right when he started Scientology in the 50's and that it's central to Scientology.

    What is its origin? I'd like to know since it's rather laughably false. They just put it up to make themselves look good and on par with legitimate religions (yes?). As I watch it I see that the "Church" regularly breaks every one of these beliefs.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Re: 2 Clearwater guys.

    In my experience, Scientologists are, mostly, quite good people.

    But, be careful when dealing with Scientologists in a business. Their primary business purpose is to make money so they can give it to the church.

    They may operate so as to maximize money to themselves rather than make the business (and non-Scientology partners) successful. They are very self-centered about this and will usually not work in your best interests -- especially if you are perceived as being anti-Scientology.

    Just be very, very diligent and careful.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Re: Picketers being paid.

    Depends on who was saying it. If it was the church's OSA person, then they are telling that lie and they know it is a lie.

    If it was a regular staff member -- that's what they are told by OSA. If so, they probably believe it -- they are gullible.

    Externally, OSA claims the picketers are "terrorists". Internally, they claim the picketers are being paid to picket by the big drug companies.

    This is typical of OSA lies, they tell whatever lies they think they can sell to the listener. Naturally, without one shred of evidence -- but that's the Church of Scientology for you.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Re: Creed of the Church of Scientology

    Yes, this was written by Hubbard very early in the process of cloaking Scientology as a religion. He wrote it very specifically as a "religious-sounding document" to make the church seem more legitimate.

    And you are right, the church really doesn't follow it.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Thank you for answering my question so quickly. I completely forgot that it would have been part of the early religious cloaking.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Thanks for answering my question. One quick question lol what are your views on the idea that Hubbard could have been molested as a child by Navyman Thomson? If you havnt heard about it I will post a link to the site

    ReplyDelete
  173. Re: Hubbard molested

    I don't have a comment or opinion. There is so much rumor and speculation about Hubbard, since so much of what he claimed turned out to be lies, people will wonder what was true, what was being hidden.

    Hubbard's "Affirmations" do seem to reveal a very insecure and troubled person, but we don't really know why he was that way.

    At one time, shortly after leaving the protected bubble of Scientology, I was rather overwhelmed by all the facts, stories, speculation and rumors about Hubbard. I decided to concentrate on facts and evidence in sorting it all out, and take the rumors and speculation with a grain of salt. That has worked well.

    This is just more speculation. Might be true, but who could know for sure?

    ReplyDelete
  174. I continue to enjoy and appreciate what you're doing on this site. A couple of related q's: above you say something about surveys that indicate a 50% membership decline for scientology in the last year. Where does one find such survey information, or other credible info about their membership numbers? Assuming this abrupt decline is real, existing members must be aware of it, at least anecdotally. How is the fact that so many are fleeing handled by the rank-and-file of public and staff scientologists? What do they think, and does that differ from what they are permitted to say about it?

    ReplyDelete
  175. Re: Decline

    I'll have to get back to you on the survey information. It's out there, but I don't have the time to look it up right now.

    Scientologists are aware of other Scientologists "disappearing", but they don't usually talk about it. It is assumed that they went to Flag or some other location in Scientology-land.

    But, the empty orgs, empty course rooms, these are harder to explain away, and that is important. When Scientologists hear that the Church of Scientology is collapsing, it does match up with what they, themselves, have observed. And they then know that something is very, very wrong.

    It is a snowball effect, and don't think this isn't happening right now. The collapse is making even die-hard Scientologists wake up -- and leave.

    ReplyDelete
  176. OK, the surveys I was referring to were:
    ARIS_Report_2008.pdf and ARIS_Report_2009.pdf.

    The number of Scientologists are so small that Scientology isn't mentioned specifically, but lumped into "Other Religions".

    The actual figures, however, are available if you dig deeper (Thanks Hek on Topix). According to the ARIS survey, the estimated number of Scientologists in the US in 2008? 55,000. Number of Scientologists in the US in 2009? 25,000.

    No that isn't a typo, that is a drop of over 50% in just one year. That is incredibly significant. That is a collapse!

    By the way, when I said "When Scientologists hear that the Church of Scientology is collapsing..." perhaps I should have said "IF Scientologists hear...". That is, we do need to tell them.

    ReplyDelete
  177. At first, my question seems very simple: How many Scilon staffers are true believers? It seems to me that at different levels there have to be those that think they are helping people and those that know it is a scam and they just have to try to make money. For example, does senior management really think they are going to clear anybody, let alone clear the world?

    The second part to this is, has it changed over time?

    I get the impression that before Hubbard declared it a religion, staffers knew it was just a way to get money from people. Auditors could just randomly advance a student or hold them on a level for as long as they want just to keep them paying for sessions. Today, auditors seem to really believe the "tech" as a science, and thus, I guess they really believe that the students are becoming clear.

    What are your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  178. Re: Staff believers

    Of course, it is difficult to say what people are really thinking, but from my experience, and the experience of many ex-Scientologists I know, all staff are True Believers -- from the lowest Scientology group to the top levels of upper management. They believe.

    When they are pushing so hard for money, more money and even more money, they are doing it because they believe David Miscavige when he tells them this is the way to "save the planet."

    That is my experience and what I know. This was true in the earlier days, although I can't speak to the very early days.

    However, Miscavige is different. He knows that the Church of Scientology is a colossal failure, because he, more than anyone, has all the data. He knows that the upper levels are fake, he never finished OT VII and hasn't even tried. He knows that Scientology auditing doesn't improve people, he hasn't had any auditing for over 20 years. His actions are toward pulling in the most money that he can for his own treasure chest -- and he isn't into helping anyone.

    So, I'd have to assume that of all the Scientologists, David Miscavige may be the only one who knows that Scientology doesn't work -- and he is only in it for the money.

    ReplyDelete
  179. hey bill as you might have the heard the court case in france against the church of scientology has started just want to ask if you think they will lose? Plus how is the news affecting America?

    ReplyDelete
  180. Re: France

    Yes, I've heard. Definitely.

    It is difficult for me to predict, since I don't know French law, but I'm guessing they will be found guilty -- at least on some of the charges. Would that lead to the banning of Scientology in France? I'm doubtful.

    Note that the Church of Scientology appears to think they will lose. See how they are reacting to the court case? They are scrambling.

    In addition, the church is doing everything they can to bury the news from France -- issuing and re-issuing tons of press releases on anything and everything so the news from France disappears in the noise. They are desperate!

    In the US, a lot of people are very interested in this case -- and wishing the US would step in to stop the church's fraudulent actions over here.

    As for Scientologists, they are being told that France is super evil and that the church is completely innocent. Unfortunately, they are gullible and believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  181. What are the chances of a reformation of sorts,where a new leader is put in place?

    Many scientologists appear to be very good people with good hearts.

    ReplyDelete
  182. I'm curious about your description of "Study Tech"--that it turns people into "a complete robot." That seems true of Scientology in general, but I'd be curious to know how that works in study tech. The insistence on looking up every word before proceeding would seem to discourage one's ability to infer meaning from the context... is that the key to the "robot" effect, or is there more to it? Thanks again for the great blog.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Re: Reformation of the Church of Scientology

    It's a good question, but who would do it? The only power in the church lies with David Miscavige personally. There is no one left with the power to correct the church or depose Miscavige.

    Miscavige has control of all the corporations, either directly and specifically, or through secret agreements and signed, undated "resignations" of the figurehead "directors". He has control. If some one or some group said he was "out", nothing would happen. Miscavige would continue in control of all the parts of the Church of Scientology that count.

    If ... when David Miscavige goes to jail, he will still be in control of the Church of Scientology. That's just the way he set it up. Control of the church is not in the hands of "Chairman of the Board", it is solely in the hands of "David Miscavige".

    No, there will be no "reformation" of the Church of Scientology.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Re: Study Tech

    What I said was that Hubbard's Study Technology made a person a complete robot on that subject. The whole foundation of his Study Tech is that authority is never wrong, authority must never be questioned and if you disagree with authority, you are wrong and must be "corrected" until you agree with the authority.

    In Hubbard's Study Tech, deviation from "authority" is unacceptable and is suppressed. So anyone studying a subject under those assumptions will inevitably be unable to think for themselves, and can only robotically carry out the exact actions, and only exact actions, set out by the "authority".

    Of course, in the real world, the "authorities" have been wrong down through the ages. Disagreeing with authority is how improvements and new discoveries are made. If Hubbard's Study Tech became the only way to study, all progress would cease.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Hi Bill. I noticed that CO$ is trying to get involved with supporting Hate Crime legislation. Short term it probably sounds SO good to these idiots. Get Hate Crime laws passed and get all the detractors arrested for Hate Crimes! Yay! Oh, but what about those nasty goldenrod RPF assignments which send people to scieno gulag camps? What about those defaming Suppressive Person Declares printed in goldenrod and put on display to order friends and family to disconnect from people? Aren't these (and other abuses) HATEFUL? Don't they single out people as being DIFFERENT and something to be DESPISED? What happens when someone actually commits suicide after being declared? What's that? The greatest good across the greatest number of dynamics? Your articles are fantastic, so if this seems like a subject that might be worth writing about, would you please consider doing such an article?

    ReplyDelete
  186. Did you see where the APA described CCHR as a "hate group"? It is indeed!

    Interesting subject. I haven't written about this for a long while, and now there is more information.

    Maybe...

    ReplyDelete
  187. @ possible hate crime article. Thanks Bill. I DID see what the APA said about CCHR! I am attaching a link to a thread on ESMB which may interest you into writing on this subject. The results of Scientology's HATE CRIMES against their critics is not funny, and sometimes even deadly. Maybe it should be done in memory of John H. Boucher. You'll probably have to copy/paste the link into your browser bar. I'll leave you alone now!

    http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=5837

    ReplyDelete
  188. Thank you for the blog, and I'm sorry if these questions have been asked already, but I didn't see them.

    1. I understand that most Scientologists despise folks who leave and critize the Church, but what's the average Scientoligsts take on someone who just quietly leaves the church?

    2. Also, what's the rationalization thought process for lower level Scientologists who can tell that the OTs aren't displaying OT powers? (i.e. they see a clear who has a cold). Do they just not talk about it or think about it?

    ReplyDelete
  189. Re: Scientologists leaving quietly.

    In actual fact, a vast majority of "Scientologists" are, in fact, doing exactly that. Since the church severely punishes people who leave if they find out, most people simply, quietly, stop participating and only privately consider themselves OUT. Since they don't announce it and carefully don't say anything negative, they are just considered "inactive", not gone.

    This drives Miscavige crazy. Here he has "8 million Scientologists" but virtually none of them ever pay money.

    The few remaining "active" Scientologists are often dragooned into programs to get these "inactive" people back on lines -- and they hate it: "Why, oh why, don't these people pay their money like we do?"

    Re: Lack of OT powers.

    Lower level Scientologists think that OTs are "hiding" their vast OT powers so they don't shock anyone.

    When Scientologists see Clears and OTs getting sick and having trouble, they assume they "just need more auditing" -- maybe "everything will be fixed on their NEXT level".

    There are always excuses for why Scientology doesn't deliver what was promised. Lots of "reasons".

    But, you are correct. For the most part, they do NOT think about it. Not thinking about things is an important skill in Scientology. It is SO much easier to be a Scientologist if you don't look and don't think.

    ReplyDelete
  190. I've been looking at recent online coverage of scientology, and it seems like they have two current public spokespeople in the US: Tommy Davis and Pat Harney. I wonder how and why they choose their representatives. Neither of those two seems very adept at their job. Davis is rich and has Hollywood connections, at least. Harney seems to have very little going for her; she is very stiff, seems uncomprehending of questions and she hasn't even reached the level of "clear." Why do you think Miscavige picked these two as the "face" of scientology?

    ReplyDelete
  191. Re: Scientology spokespeople

    Good question! There is one overriding criteria that Miscavige uses. It is the reason he has attacked, degraded and removed all previous leader-types, and is the primary reason for choosing Davis and Harney.

    Miscavige is extremely afraid of competition, of being "shown up" as the incompetent he is, of even being replaced by a real leader.

    Therefore, anyone with any intelligence, anyone with any leadership qualities, anyone who is admired and respected had to be attacked, degraded and destroyed.

    Which leaves who? The un-intelligent, who have no leadership abilities and who are not admired or respected by anyone. Those Miscavige will promote. Those Miscavige will allow onto positions of influence.

    And that's why the church no longer has any good leadership in any position.

    And that's how Tommy Davis and Pat Harney ended up where they are. They are no possible threat to Miscavige.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Why do Scientologists use the term "invalidation" for when people express disagreement with their beliefs?

    It seems like a strange choice, because it implies that other people have the power to validate or invalidate someone elses opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Re: Invalidation

    This is one of the things I love about these conversations. I hadn't really looked at the Scientology use of the word in that light.

    But it's true. In the Scientology mindset, others have a tremendous power over you. If a Scientologist comes in contact, in any way, with a "Suppressive", they will get sick, they will have problems, they will fail.

    In this way, according to Scientology, others have a huge influence over you.

    And this "invalidation", oh, my! In Scientology, it is as you have said. Invalidation is suppression. Scientologists are so afraid of "invalidation", because they are so much at the complete effect of "suppression".

    Once a person has bought into this Scientology idea, they are running scared, afraid of any contrary facts or opinions.

    Good on bringing this up. Nicely spotted.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Hey bill great blog always check it every week for updates

    Anyway my question is is it true that in Gold Base they have an office all prepped for LRH's return and no-one is allowed to enter it?

    I heard this rumour a while back and just wanted to see what you knew

    ReplyDelete
  195. Re: LRH Office

    It is true. Every Scientology church, by strict policy, must have an office set aside for Hubbard. No one is allowed to go in or use it. This policy was written by Hubbard when he was still alive and running the church.

    The idea was that he might show up and need an office, but I've never heard of that actually happening -- and it's pretty silly now that he's gone, but policy is policy and must always be complied with.

    ReplyDelete
  196. The eight dynamics

    I've seen the Scieno-speak on it, but could you explain how the average Scientologist applies them to how the function in day to day life?

    Also, how the church uses them to get members to comply with the church's goals?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  197. Re: Hubbard's 8 Dynamics

    I really don't want to get into teaching Scientology in any depth. While I do want to help non-Scientologists understand Scientologists, which does involve some explanation of Scientology beliefs, any in-depth exposition into Scientology dogma involves too much bafflegab to make good reading.

    So, a full essay on Scientology's Eight Dynamics, and how Scientologists are supposed to use it every day, would be just too boring.

    Besides that, whether Scientologists actually use the Eight Dynamics as they are supposed to, is truly debatable. In my experience, they really don't very much.

    But...

    Your second question is much more interesting. How does the Church of Scientology use the Eight Dynamics to control its members?

    (I've changed the question a bit, since the purported goals of the church are not what the church is actually working towards.)

    Quick recap of the Eight Dynamics, each one is the "urge to survive as or through":
    1. Self
    2. Family, children, sex
    3. Group, community
    4. Mankind
    5. All life forms
    6. Physical universe
    7. Spirit
    8. Supreme Being.

    While Hubbard said that all Dynamics had equal weight, the Church of Scientology claims that the activities of the church (only one of a Scientologists 3rd Dynamic groups) are vastly senior to and take precedence over every other Dynamic.

    This means that the church can destroy any Scientologist's personal life, marriage, work, neighborhood, etc. "for the good of the group" (where "group" means ONLY the Church of Scientology).

    Oddly enough, Scientologist actually buy this and allow their lives (all their other Dynamics) to be destroyed "for the church".

    Scientologists also fail to note that the Church of Scientology doesn't actually do anything that benefits any of the Eight Dynamics.

    And now you see why I say that Scientologists really don't use the Eight Dynamics concept. They pretty much just let the Church of Scientology tromp all over their lives without regard to any of that stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  198. Can you explain a little about the concept of a 'win'? I'm assuming that a win refers to a success, but what kind of success? Does it mean getting over some personal spiritual hurdle, or a general success in life, like getting a promotion at work? I'll read about people saying they didn't have many wins at a particular level, but they have to act like they are getting lots of wins.
    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  199. @Psych Out

    This term "win" is used a lot in Scientology -- and it isn't well defined. It is one of those terms used in Scientology that is purposely vague, but sounds really good.

    In general, it simply means doing well, moving quickly through a course, appearing to be happy. If the student has some difficulty, that means they "are not winning".

    If the Scientologist is getting auditing, then "winning" means all is going smoothly, the person is happy when they get out of session.

    However, as you pointed out, most Scientologists will admit, if they are being honest, that they did not get the expected "wins" from Scientology. The promised new abilities never materialized, the new realizations didn't really make much of a difference and the "good feelings" didn't last very long.

    But, because Hubbard said only Evil People "don't get wins", everyone in Scientology has to pretend they are "winning" to stay out of trouble.

    ReplyDelete