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.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Scientologists: Don't you wonder?

L. Ron Hubbard wrote the books of Scientology. Over the many years of his life, he had the books reprinted many times, often with minor corrections and modifications. Years after his death, in the 1990's, David Miscavige had all the books revised and reprinted to "bring them back to source," requiring all Scientologists replace their libraries. Then, in 2007, Miscavige once again had all the books revised, this time radically, and required, once again, that all Scientologists replace their libraries at great cost. Are we supposed to believe that Ron, through all those years, through all his own re-readings and all those reprints, never noticed that his books were completely wrong?

Doesn't that make you wonder?

Do you know that "L. Ron Hubbard" is no longer, officially, the author of the books on Scientology? Did you know that the name "Hubbard" no longer shows up on the front page of the main Church of Scientology web site? Have you noticed that Ron's name and photos are disappearing from the events and from the publications? Instead, you see Miscavige's name and photos.

Doesn't that make you wonder?

When Ron was alive, he was very satisfied with his tech. In fact, he wrote "Keeping Scientology Working" in which he said it was complete and shouldn't be altered in any way. To alter any of his technology was the work of an enemy of Scientology.

And yet, years after Ron's death, his technology was radically changed. Everyone who had been trained before that time had their certs canceled and they were required to re-train under the new technology, even those who were trained personally by Ron!

Doesn't that make you wonder?

But, anyone who complains that Ron's "Keeping Scientology Working" policy explicitly forbids exactly that sort of alteration, has been immediately declared Suppressive. Most of those who knew Ron, worked with Ron, trained under Ron, have been declared and kicked out.

Doesn't that make you wonder?

As you know, the lavish events put on by David Miscavige are flashy and impressive. The news announced in these events is extraordinary: The Church of Scientology's expansion and impact on the world is amazing.

And yet, outside of those events and the church's own press releases, evidence of all those amazing things is missing. Every day there are news stories about Scientology, some positive, some negative, but lacking in all the news stories is any mention of those big wins announced in the events. You look at your local church and you see the place is virtually empty and the staff is struggling. Your local church has been that way as long as you can remember. If you know of an "Ideal Org", did you notice that, after all the fuss and bother, the church went back to almost empty and struggling? You look at Flag and you see it is much emptier than it was years ago, and the staff is struggling. Ron says a well run course fills up and a poorly run course will empty.

Doesn't that make you wonder?

Have you noticed that your circle of Scientology friends has been shrinking? Some Scientologists have been "declared". Others have moved away and quietly disappeared. Some are still around somewhere but they are no longer active or interested. It keeps happening. Do you see that Scientologists you know, who are good people, doing good work, have suddenly found themselves in serious trouble with the church? Do you see Scientologists, maybe even yourself, struggling for years to try to make progress, but not making it?

Doesn't that make you wonder?

And if you wonder about any of this, do you get the strong feeling that you'd better not ask any questions? Do you get the feeling that you'd better be careful or you'll be next?

And doesn't that make you wonder?


  1. It makes me more than wonder. It's so obvious that the church was taken over by a psychotic dictator. Yet, some people still stand up and cheer. If they only knew just how much of an evil tyrant David Miscavige was (and the details of this are being provided on web sites like ARS and Operation Clambake by people who witnessed his brutality first hand) then they'd stop rationalizing why things "just don't seem right for some reason" and LOOK AT THE FACTS. The data is there. Find out for yourself.

  2. Scientologists can't look at ARS and Clambake. They can't look at much of anything. So speaking to Scientologists about that sort of thing does not communicate.

    The reason I wrote this post the way I did is to point out all those obvious things that Scientologists can look at and can see, and note what any Scientologist should note: Things are not right.

    You can't talk to Scientologists about things they are not permitted to know about.

    But here we show that the CoS is so far gone that they can no longer hide their corruption.

  3. I thought there was meant to be a confront for everything? It doesn't look very good for LRH tech if scientologists have to be kept away from opposing views and criticism in case it "enturbulates" them. It's sad, really, that people invest so much time, effort and money in scientology and get so little of any real value back. Especially the staff. There's nothing more hurtful than giving your all to something and then continually being told it's not good enough.

  4. Well said, anonymous.

    In the end, those in the CoS who have exploited the good-but-gullible people will have to answer for all this.

    At lease, I believe that will happen.

  5. Thanks for a great site.
    What makes me wonder about this post is that you seem to believe that CoS was a great place and that the tech actually worked, when LRH was in charge. You seem to be forgetting that LRH invented both Fair Game and "Attack, never defend"! There's no doubt that Miscavige is a tyrant, but LRH was too (although not as powerful as DM).

  6. Thanks, anonymous.

    I, personally, do believe that LRH created the environment that was, and is, so prone to abuses. I believe that LRH created the environment that inevitably resulted in Miscavige.

    However, this particular post is designed to be readable by, and acceptable to, the average Scientologist - who, usually, does have a higher opinion of LRH.

    They often need to open their eyes on a gradient.

  7. Nice comment. It's another way of saying that your *real* intention is to destroy Scientology as a subject.

    Your "scientologist-friendly" mask just kind of splattered on the floor, you know.

  8. @Anonymous

    Just because you put words in my mouth doesn't mean I said them. Just because you think I have some intention doesn't mean that is my intention.

    You are wrong.

    I have no intention to "destroy Scientology as a subject". I never said that I never thought that and I certainly don't want that.

    If you want to "destroy Scientology as a subject", go ahead and try -- you won't have any luck. You cannot "destroy" an idea, and trying to do so will have the opposite effect.

    I said that I believed that LRH "created the environment that was, and is, prone to abuses". I said that I don't have as high an opinion of LRH as True Believers do. How on earth did you take that and warp it into my "intending to destroy Scientology as a subject"?

    Please, don't try to put words in my mouth, it's not nice.

  9. @JustBill:
    Your exact statement is above, and the comment you are responding too is just above that.

    Given that context, who do you think you are fooling?

    You did not *just* say that LRH "created the environment that was, and is, prone to abuses". You then went on to say "I believe that LRH created the environment that inevitably resulted in Miscavige".

    As you consider Mr. Miscavige to be a psycho dictator who enslaves scientologists (am I putting words in your mouth here?), it follows *inevitably* that you believe LRH created an environment (through Scientology, right?) which would lead to the raise of a psycho dictator.

    You can't really contest that one, it's hardly more than a paraphrase of your original statement.

    Further you state that this post was written with a scientologist audience in mind which is the reason why you are "being nice" with LRH, because you want to take things "with a gradient", whereas your actual opinion is a total condemnation of LRH and his works.

    Your intentions are fairly obvious, you know. Why do you keep trying to cover it up by quoting LRH, when you have made it abundantly clear you consider his words to be hogwash?

    You are not just an enemy of the Church and of its current leadership. You are an enemy of the subject itself, and even though you want to do it "in gradients", only an idiot could fail to see that destroying the subject itself is indeed your goal.

  10. @Sylver

    Please stop completely altering what I said and then claiming that's what I "really meant".

    Your "examples" do not prove your point and your "paraphrasing" completely alters what I said.

    Is this some kind of by-product of Scientology Study Tech, where you can't read what was written but must alter it to say something completely different? You really should get a refund.

    I have never said, inferred, thought or written that the subject of Scientology should be destroyed. On the contrary, I have said, many times, that I thought there was some good in the subject and hoped those parts would be preserved and enhanced.

    From your rewording, it appears that you believe that criticizing Hubbard is exactly the same as wishing for the destruction of Scientology. Some day, when you are able to think clearly again, you will see that one does not mean the other and that criticizing Hubbard is not evil incarnate.

  11. "criticizing Hubbard is not evil incarnate" I like this phrase. To disagree or to critisize a theory, a philisopy, a book, a writer, an idea, a suggestion, is part of an individual's rights of freedom---the right to express an opinion. But why should the criricised feel threatened and shout "enemy" because of a critisism? No one is perfect in this world. No human being is faultless and no human being can afford to by-pass a chance for improvement from honest and scencere critisism.Growth comes from critisism, too. That is one of the ways change can come.


Comments will be moderated. Have patience, I get around to it pretty quick. As a rule of thumb, I won't approve spam, off-topic, trolling or abusive stuff. The rest is usually OK. Yes, you can disagree with me.