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.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Scientology Thought Control - Part 4

We covered, in Scientology Thought Control - Part 1, how simple definitions can change the way people think. In that example, the Hubbardism "entheta" causes Scientologists to reject "negative" information about the church even when true, and accept "positive" information about the church even if false.

In Scientology Thought Control - Part 2, we looked into some hard-core thought control technology embodied in L. Ron Hubbard's "Keeping Scientology Working" and his "Study Technology". With these things, key "facts" are installed, which cause a Scientologist's subsequent perception and thoughts to conform to the "correct" pattern. After that, no ideas can get a foothold if they conflict with the approved L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige and Scientology "reality".

In Scientology Thought Control - Part 3, we find that the Church of Scientology is not responsible for any harm they inflict on their believers.

But what happens when, after all that, a Scientologist doesn't properly control their thoughts? What happens when a Scientologist has any doubts about something that Hubbard or Miscavige claims?

If left unsupervised, these Scientologists might just look around for more information.

As you might expect, Scientologists are not left unsupervised when they are in this precarious condition. If a Scientologist dares to question something from Hubbard or Miscavige, they become tightly controlled and are isolated from other Scientologists.

It works like this.

To give you a little background: Hubbard created a whole hierarchy of "Ethics Conditions". When you're doing well, you will "be in Normal" or perhaps "Affluence" or even "Power". But if you're not doing well, you'll get into trouble, you'll be in "lower conditions". Below "Normal" is "Emergency", then "Danger", "Non-Existence", "Liability", "Doubt", "Enemy", "Treason" and, finally "Confusion".

Each condition has its own Hubbard-created "formula" to be followed under the watchful eye of the "Ethics Officer". Each lower condition has its penalties.

You can find more on all of these things on the Internet. The details of these are, for the most part, not important to this discussion, but please note that this represents complete control over all Scientologists. No matter what they are doing, Hubbard has a specific "formula" for them to follow.

Also note that there are lots more "lower conditions" than there are "good" conditions. It's a penalty and control system more than anything else.

Sorry for the digression into Scientologese, but it is important to understand that, in Scientology, doubt is a lower condition. It's bad! It's just above "Enemy"! If you doubt, if you question, if you don't think Hubbard was right, if you don't agree completely with Miscavige, then you are in trouble. You are in "Doubt". With penalties.

And you will continue to be in trouble, with penalties, until you stop doubting, stop questioning and completely agree with Hubbard and Miscavige. The penalties will continue until you are 'happy'.

But wait, there's more!

As part of the "Doubt Formula" Hubbard wrote:
When one cannot make up one's mind as to an individual, a group, organization or project, a condition of Doubt exists.

Doubt Formula:
  1. Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that group, project or organization, brushing aside all prejudice and rumor.
  2. Examine the statistics of the individual, group, project or organization.
Then,
  1. Evaluate oneself or one’s own group, project or organization as to intentions and objectives.
  2. Evaluate one's own or one's group, project or organization's statistics.
Did you get the switch? Someone is questioning what Hubbard said, or what Miscavige said and they are given this formula to follow -- and suddenly it's "them against us". Huh? How did that happen?

Well, you see, that's the way Hubbard thought. That's the way Miscavige thinks. If you aren't in absolute and full agreement -- then you have joined their enemies!

Is there anything in that "formula" for isolating the factors of the person's questions and discovering the truth about those specific questions? No, it's just them or us -- choose! Now, how does that answer any questions?

But wait, there's still more.

What about evaluating one's own organization "as to intentions and objectives"? What about one's own "organization's statistics"? Eh? Where are the true, accurate and complete statistics of Scientology? Where is the true, accurate and complete information about Scientology's 'intentions and objectives'"?

Sorry, they're secret. They're confidential. They're not available. Scientologists can not see this information. All they are allowed to see are the fanciful event presentations from Miscavige. Raw data? Raw statistics? Open access? Not going to happen, ever.

So, how could a Scientologist ever be able to apply this formula? There is no data to decide!

Someone starts questioning what they're told by Scientology and this is the formula they are told they must apply to resolve their questions. No, this formula deliberately changes the scope from "Is this true?" to "Are you with 'us good guys', or are you with 'the enemy'?"

No, this won't help Scientologists resolve questions or doubts, this is just another thought control mechanism to keep Scientologists from straying from their allowed beliefs.

This "Doubt Formula" catches any who start to question things and herds them back into "right thinking".
-

68 comments:

  1. Doubt is what you have when you can't decide between two options. Should you take up ballroom dancing or stick with tennis? You use a doubt formula to work it out. It's a formula that you use to work it out to your own satisfaction. Not somebody else's.

    Conditions formulae are all about your own purposes. If you want to be a great tennis player, then great parties, pretty girls, European holidays may well be the enemy.

    If a person doesn't want to forward the purposes of the Church of Scientology, conditions formulae are there to help him sort out exactly what he does want to do. All your talk about thought control is your own wishful thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Anonymous Scientologist

    LOL! No, it doesn't work that way!

    I understand this is what Scientology says about such things. I understand this is what Scientology wants people to believe about such things. I understand that this is what you are trained to say about such things -- but it is all "wishful thinking" on your part.

    LOL! No, a Scientologist who questions whether they should take up ballroom dancing is not assigned Doubt! If they are a good little believer, they may "apply the Doubt Formula", but the church does not assign them Doubt! You are being disingenuous.

    Tell me, anonymous Scientologist, if you want us to believe your BS, why would being undecided about ballroom dancing be a condition below Enemy? Why would being undecided about ballroom dancing have severe penalties attached to the Doubt condition?

    You know, and I know that when a Scientologist expresses doubts about Hubbard's or Miscavige's truthfulness or about the validity of Scientology they are assigned a condition of Doubt!

    That's just the reality. That's how the Doubt condition and formula is actually used by the church.

    Every Scientologist, and every ex-Scientologist knows this is true. Every Scientologist, and every ex-Scientologist knows that Doubt is the penalty for expressing any doubts about Hubbard, Miscavige or Scientology.

    Your response is the façade that Scientology wants outsiders to believe. It isn't the truth -- and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well done again Bill, and thanks for answering the first poster here who's idiotic enough to believe he makes sense.

    He/she and their friends should really go back and tell Li'l David it's not really working with the BS. Everytime they open their keyboard mouths they're not only unable to get anyone to agree with them, they can't even distract them properly. Just Bill see's 'em from miles away.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The doubt condition you mention is to be applied in a group or 3rd dynamic context. It's not used in a right or wrong context. For that there are the Data Series.

    But I'm sure many moronic ethics officers have used this formula to deal with logical problems. The qual to become an EO is an IQ of 140 but I doubt anyone that gifted is inside CoS. I myself have handled Flag public on loused up ethics handlings.

    There is nothing wrong with Scientology. Unfortunately CoS members are too stupid to understand it much less apply it correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Rodney,

    Thanks. I do have fun with these guys, it's true! They always prove my points for me.

    What they never get is that I welcome their True Believer comments for just that reason. Of course, they can never change, because Hubbard told them exactly what to do! LOL!

    @Pascal,

    I've heard the "There is nothing wrong with Scientology ... members are too stupid to understand it" line of reasoning. While I appreciate your viewpoint, I do not agree.

    Those who believe that "there is nothing wrong" inevitably cherry-pick and intelligently re-interpret what they call Scientology. Now, that is fine, and if you can pull good things out of Scientology, more power to you, but reading all of the things Hubbard said as part of his version of Scientology uncovers some very dumb, some very vicious, and some very abusive "technologies".

    Honestly, you cannot exclude those things from "Scientology". Those are quite specifically included in Hubbard's Scientology.

    While I would not call all of what Hubbard said as bad, I definitely would not call everything he said as good either. Where the balance lies is certainly debatable, but a categorical statement that there is "nothing wrong" is quite naive, in my opinion.

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  6. My point was that the CoS abuses Scientology. DM and his minions are unfit to apply it and we get the kind of BS you talk about rightly in your blog. The CoS puts people in "doubt" as you put it because it is unable to clear this upset by 2-way comm. CoS staffers are mostly riff-raff and low-IQ, though good natured, this makes for wildly moronic interpretations of LRH scriptures and often cruel ones (as in DM).

    I'm an indie Scientologist by the way. Not affiliated to any group.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks Pascal, I appreciate what you say, the Church of Scientology and Miscavige are quite abusive.

    There is quite a bit I could say, and have said on the subject. Miscavige and his henchmen are, in most cases, following LRH policy. Mind you, they have carefully selected his most abusive policies to follow, but those nasty practices really are from LRH and he really did design that a system that could be so abusive.

    Intelligent, rational people could not, and would not, follow such policies, and so it is difficult for intelligent and rational people to even recognize how very abusive some of LRH's policies actually were.

    In any case, as I said, if you are pulling good things out of the Scientology muddle, then good on you!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yep. LRH wanted a "universal" solution so he left policy in case noone with a brain or heart was in charge. OT's have not been dependable. They get bored and leave, along with their ability to inspire and keep good order. We know the rest. Neither LRH nor DM are OTs. Let's hope a big spark gets interested in reforming CoS and give it a human face. And give DM a new asshole. :D

    ReplyDelete
  9. "
    Doubt Formula:

    1. Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that group, project or organization, brushing aside all prejudice and rumor.
    2. Examine the statistics of the individual, group, project or organization.

    Then,

    4. Evaluate oneself or one’s own group, project or organization as to intentions and objectives.
    5. Evaluate one's own or one's group, project or organization's statistics.

    Did you get the switch? Someone is questioning what Hubbard said, or what Miscavige said and they are given this formula to follow -- and suddenly it's "them against us". Huh? How did that happen?
    "

    Where is the switch? The formula asks the person to evaluate both sides and then choose his camp (in the part you failed to post).

    Could you expand a little bit on that switch thing? What you posted of the formula does not substantiate your claim that there is a switch, and if it does, you'll need to show it better than merely claiming there is one.

    To choose whether to be in or out of the group does not make it an "us-vs-them" thing, it simply is a choice, and the formula says the person should take information from both sides and then decide.

    All of what you claim is not in the formula, it only is in your head. Quite on the contrary, it demonstrate the exact opposite than what you claim about your "thought control" assertions. People are given a choice, which would be clearer even if you would post the whole formula, not just part of it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Pascal says "CoS staffers are mostly riff-raff and low-IQ"

    Hubbard created the organization, and all the policies that are used to run it. Ultimately, CoS is a reflection of Hubbard's 'scriptures,' hence if it fails, and end up being ran by "riff-raff and low-IQ" as you say, who else than Hubbard and his failed policies is to blame?

    Even before Miscavige, CoS had been a failure, as top-ranked members of the organization were convicted in the U.S., and the organization itself was criminally convicted in Canada. Well-deserved bad press has always plagued CoS, because of its track record of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, threats, harassment. If Scientology works so well, how is it possible to end-up with such an unending track record of failures?

    Here are a few hints: Hubbard designed Scientology for his own benefit, so his policies will always go counter principles of transparency, accountability, checks and balances, etc., all characteristics you won't find in a totalitarian design. Any of these would have been a threat to Hubbard's power over the mind of his followers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @anonymous Scientologist

    Where is the switch? What part of my post didn't you understand?

    The Scientologist has doubts about what Hubbard said, or what Miscavige claims and is assigned Doubt. They have a question which needs resolution, but the "Doubt Formula" for (supposedly) resolving their doubts is all about two groups and requires they choose.

    When did resolving a question have anything to do with choosing between two groups? That makes no sense!

    That's the switch. Don't answer their questions. Don't resolve their doubts. Don't provide any facts or evidence about the questionable claims by Scientology. No, Scientology's "solution" to a Scientologist's doubts is to present them with the demand: Them? Or us? Choose!

    But, of course, I already explained that. You're pretending you don't get it because you're a Scientologist, and you're not allowed to see what's really there, ever.

    I don't mind, I like having another opportunity to make my points.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @anonymous Scientologist,

    One more thing. You claim that Scientologists can apply the Doubt Formula, that they can "gather data from both sides", right?

    So, tell me where the Scientologist "gathers" the full, honest and complete statistics of Scientology? Eh? How can any Scientologist actually apply the formula? Where are the real facts? Huh? I can't hear you.

    No, the church makes is completely impossible to get any information, so it is completely impossible for any Scientologist to ever apply the Doubt Formula to Scientology.

    This alone negates anything you have to say about the "validity" of that formula in regards Scientology.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Bill:

    CoS is a reflection of the caliber of the people within in. You can apply Fair Game or What is Greatness. Depending on your ability and brightness.

    Hubbard was no great leader, just like Henry Ford was no ace pilot. CoS has been plagued by incompetent people, then again this is planet Earth.

    Hubbard discovered Scientology but wasn't able to properly put it in the limelight so he founded the Church and even there he couldn't get bright enough people to get onboard.

    I see Scientology as Karate, some use it for good, some for evil, some spend years in it and don't learn anything.

    You should study the history of the Catholic Church, you'll see that organized religion has always been a bitch.

    If LRH wanted to make money he would have remained a writer and not have bothered surounding himself with idiots and losing his mind to their incompetence.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bill, you seem to package Scientology, the Church, LRH and DM together. They are quite separate things. If you disagree with any of these things you do an investigation per data series.

    Personal integrity is a core value in Scientology. But the CoS desperately tries to handle it's members with stupid interpretations of LRH scriptures which in the end don't work (like declaring class XII auditors SP, etc).

    DM is a military type spark and you get military type justice in CoS. Abusive, harsh and cruel.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pascal,

    We may have to agree to disagree on this. You are willing to forgive Hubbard all of his flaws, and blame the problems of the Church of Scientology on incompetent followers and on Miscavige.

    Actually, you seem to not even see Hubbard's flaws.

    I suppose that's to be expected, since you are a Scientologist, even though you are out of the church.

    The truth about Hubbard is out there, available for all to see, if you are willing to see it. I consider Hubbard to have been quite smart, he accomplished quite a bit, he put together quite an organization, he got a lot of people to join in.

    But he was quite flawed.

    He lied. A lot. He loved to tell stories about himself, but his own diary and many, many official records prove he lied.

    He was quite mercurial, being quite charming and charismatic at one time and then quite abusive and irrational the next.

    There is considerable evidence that most of what Hubbard "discovered" in Scientology was actually developed by others and simply co-opted by Hubbard. The evidence, in some cases, is incontrovertable. He lied and claimed ownership when others were responsible.

    As for the current church and Miscavige, Hubbard created the flaws in the church that not only made Miscavige possible, but made his take-over of the church inevitable. The fatal flaw was that the top of the church was protected, always right, and could never be disagreed with. With Hubbard off the lines, it was inevitable that some power-hungry idiot would move into that protected seat. If not Miscavige, then some other idiot would have. But the fatal flaw was Hubbard's creation.

    You speak of the harsh military-style justice "of Miscavige", but that is one thing Miscavige never altered! That harsh military-style justice is pure Hubbard!

    Hubbard spent his last years in hiding, sick and in pain, betrayed by those he trusted. If he and his tech was so flawless, his end would have been better.

    It is OK to see the good parts of Scientology. It is OK to see the good parts of Hubbard. But, in my opinion, is isn't OK to reject what is true about these things -- that's one of the core problems with Scientology, the rejection of true facts, just because they might be unpleasant or might conflict with what Hubbard said.

    To survive, Scientology must co-exist with truth, not hide from it and fight it.

    I suggest you look at all the information about Hubbard that is out there, don't hide from it.

    If there is good in Scientology, it's there whether Hubbard was flawed or perfect. Since he was flawed, you should know about it.

    If there is good in Scientology, it's because of people like you who made it so, not because "Hubbard was perfect".

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  16. LRH was a normal guy. I am a Scientologist, not a Hubbard follower. I can sort LRH from Scientology. LRH installed the military-type culture of CoS after failing in Rhodesia but he seemed to have included some compassion during his time, being an auditor. DM only punishes, being an asshole.

    I've read all about LRH and frankly I don't care about him or his pathetic life. He was a normal man with quite normal failings, like DM. Not a stellar being at all, this he confesses in many tapes and writings. But people like to build idols.

    Don't look in the Catholic Church for true Christianity. Same applies for CoS until a true OT takes the helm. Until then, they cope with harsh ethics, out-tech, bad PR, zero impingement and money-syphoning gallore.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'd like to hear about experiences when you've seen this idiotic "assigned doubt" practice you mention here. I've only experienced being put into liability when really I was in power and an ethics protection candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Pascal's posts contain a rational fallacy I've noticed when dealing with people who disagree with the Church but think Scientology is great. Pascal says: "There is nothing wrong with Scientology. Unfortunately CoS members are too stupid to understand it much less apply it correctly." Wait a minute. Isn't Scientology supposed to CREATE people who are smart, high-IQ, high awareness, high responsibility and so on. Isn't that what Scientology is all about, the big promise - creating such super-beings? Yet staff remain stupid and unable, per Pascal. And even Hubbard himself was "not an OT." Huh? Well, if he wasn't, then who was? Pascal adds that "CoS staffers are mostly riff-raff and low-IQ." Really? Despite all of their training in Hubbard's "tech" and all their auditing? And by the way, I've been on staff. I know a lot of current and former staff, and I would never paint them with such a broad, dismissive brush. They were certainly not riff-raff and were often quite bright. They often couldn't get anything done within Hubbard's restrictive organizational setup or with his cumbersone policies. but once out of Scientology, interestingly enough, most have become very successful.
    And Pascal notes that Hubbard "couldn't get bright enough people to get onboard." Wait a minute - his whole "technology" was to MAKE bright people. So what happened with that? The point is this: if you assert that Scientology needs to have high-IQ, smart, sane, rational people at the outset to be applied correctly, then you excuse any failing of Scientiology because "it was not being applied by sane, intelligent people." Well, if you need perfect people to make Scientology work, then why would you even need Scientology in the first place?
    And finally, Pascal thinks that all that is needed to turn Scientology around is for a true "OT" to take over. Well. Scientology has been around for over 50 years. The OT levels have been around for 40 years. So where are the "real OTs"? We're waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Pascal,

    Regarding Scientologists being assigned Doubt. Google is your friend. Tons of stories.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Cactus:

    Indeed there is a fallacy. Hubbard was an optimist. Scientology started out with bright people in the early 50s. Engineers, scientists, etc... Soon after riff-raff started to flow in and you saw how OT research stopped and undercutting started.

    Scientology only gives you back who you are. For most people this isn't much. It has the potential to make OTs. But few have it in them.

    This planet is a dumpster of dumpsters. Only a handful here are worth saving. But in the spirit of "religion" and "PR", Ron said everyone could do this that and the other thing. Factually this is false. Ron himself was no OT and never will be probably.

    Scientology gives you your chance at OT, but innate ability will never change.

    As for CoS staffers, I've never met anyone stellar. Sure I've seen parlour tricks and gung-ho people, but noone even remotely able to clear a planet or leave a dent in history.

    Most OTs don't qual for CoS or are in very lousy condition indeed.

    I repeat. Scientology gives you back yourself. For 99.99% of beings, it ain't much. Ain't life unfair?

    Ron was right, this IS hell.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Pascal,

    You say that Scientology "has the potential to make OTs" and later "Scientology gives you your chance at OT." I don't understand how your could make such statements. Is there any evidence at all for this? No. Scientology has never made any OTs. Hubbard, as you said, was no OT. Miscavige is the opposite of OT: Effect.

    Yet you believe that Scientology can make OTs. What makes you think so? If it were at all possible through Scientology, Hubbard would have made it. If the potential were there, someone would have made it. Didn't happen. There is not, and, from all available evidence, will never be, a Scientology OT.

    ReplyDelete
  22. hockey coaches can't play. Hubbard was no stellar being. This has nothing to do with Scientology. Hubbard was an optimist and I think that philosophy is more workeable than to go around telling people they are puny and never will amount to anything. The truth will set you free but absolute truth will make most want to shoot themselves.

    There is no evidence, no. These are my opinions, based on what I've observed and deduced from my experience. If this indicates, good. If not, big deal.

    LRH says competence is not gained through Scientology. There is a value to one's experience and beings are NOT equal in potential.

    Judge Scientology for what it does for you. Don't look at others to be examples of anything. This applies to life, not only SCN.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I like that - "all Scientology does is give you back yourself." Too true. In other words, it's a fraud. It does not and never has created higher "states."
    You say it "can." Well, that qualifies as a BELIEF, an article of faith. It never actually has. But you are entitled to your beliefs.
    Factually, and this is my opinion only, it takes your "self" away and substitutes a rigid system of belief, practice, ritual and group agreements. It often takes people quite a while to regain their self (their own beliefs, viewpoints and opinions) after being involved in Scientology.

    ReplyDelete
  24. For most it's a fraud yes. I have no problems with it myself and have improved tons and will keep on doing so. This has been observed by my family and close friends.

    As for replacing me with what you say well... I am not a member of the Church or any group of Scientologists. I have no rituals or group agreements with anyone. I find it has helped me think for myself and not have to fit in to any culture. But I am an exception and few are like me. As I say, Scientology is grossly misunderstood by most everyone. As are most religions. I don't lose any sleep over this.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Just Bill

    "When did resolving a question have anything to do with choosing between two groups? That makes no sense!"

    It makes perfect sense. The formulas are about action. Things you do in various circumstances, especially since they are mostly applied by staff who are on a production cycle.

    If you are in doubt, and you are actively involved with the thing you are in doubt about, you need to examine information from both sides and then decide what you want to do.

    To turn that into a "thought control" mechanism by claiming there is a swift when there isn't is patently ridiculous.

    @Just Bill: "But, of course, I already explained that. You're pretending you don't get it because you're a Scientologist, and you're not allowed to see what's really there, ever."

    To call anybody who disagrees with your absolute assertions a deluded Scientologist certainly does not make your reasoning look much better.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well, then I guess Scientology is for "exceptional people" like yourself and not for the riff-raff and hoi polloi that makes up the rest of humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @anonymous Scientologist,

    I think we're done here. If you think that a Scientologist's doubts about Hubbard's validity is about choosing between two groups, you are too far gone to debate with. It does not "make perfect sense". It is purest nonsense.

    When a group classifies "doubt" as a lower condition, below enemy, and punishes people who have doubts -- forcing them to wear chains and being unable to talk to anyone -- that is thought control. All your words cannot change reality!

    Oh, and by the way, you are a deluded Scientologist. If that upsets you, WAKE UP!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Pascal is striking a pose which is really transparent. We, who have the information and can verify it through Hubbard's works on audio, video and in print, can safely say without fear of contradiction that Hubbard's achievments in collecting and developing his 'tech' took him to other non-human realms. Remember when he nearly got bowled over by a train on Venus? What about his visits to heaven?
    And of course there is his life threatening escapade with the 'wall of fire'. How could he have done all this, and more, if he was not special -an ordinary Joe without OT powers?

    That's all rubbish of course but it's unfortunately for you, Pascal, that Hubbard is who you really believe in. You cannot worm your way around the incisive, free intuition of those who are trained, through experience and the learned disciplines of study, who see you as soon as you crawl out of your hole. You know this already so what are you doing wasting your time arguing with Bill?

    Well, it's plain to us critics, if not the uninformed viewer of these posts, that Pascal is trying to fool the 'raw meat' amongst us into thinking scientology and Hubbard are seperable. He knows this is not true. His strategy is to seperate, split and render ineffective a persons critical thoughts. Do not be mislead by his 'blasphemous' denial of his leader. This has been, for a while now, one of the tactics used to distract us -along with "I'm not a scientologist but......"

    One object of my endeavour in taking time to write this is to show and warn those who see scientology as harmless, a religion, or possessing any kind of value -not forgetting those who acknowledge the deformaties of the cult's approach to life but are complacent about doing anything against it. This blog is inaccessable to the ordinary scientology foot-soldier. Bill, who used to be in the cult, knows it's methods in detail. When he says Pascal is a scientologist you do not need to worry about believing him. If you wish to give Pascal and his friends the benefit of the doubt you can stay on this site to examine how Bill comes to his conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Pascal: You said "This planet is a dumpster of dumpsters. Only a handful here are worth saving."

    Frankly, not sure you would have done better than David Miscavige. He does appear to have the same views on the world, and on his peers.

    One of the lessons history has taught us, is that it's always worrisome when one has this view that some are "worth saving," and even more worrisome if they are in position of power. There are sinister implications in that kind of thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Anonymous: You said "If you are in doubt, and you are actively involved with the thing you are in doubt about, you need to examine information from both sides and then decide what you want to do."

    Let's say you are having doubts about Church of Scientology's finances, whether funds are spent wisely, and whether there is some level of inurement going on. Concretely, how will you "examine information from both sides"?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I did doubt many times while in Scientology about Scientology and it NEVER, now that I more aware, resolved. It only served to suppress the doubt because the formula, even if it workde, is not able or meant to resolve that condition as Just Bill states.

    I wish I would had access to meeting Ron, to perceive him for myself. He never showed up in person or in an interview. His end of the year tapes were sound recordings. It seemed to me he was hiding so as to prevent being perceived for what he really was.
    The least he could have done would have been to announce his “caused” death in a recording or a video.

    I wish I would have been able to talk openly and honestly to “OT’s” and get them to communicate what they really thought about the levels. If their expectations were met, if they really could go exterior at will to visit the Moon or use tractor beams to prevent earthquakes as Advanced Magazine “success” stories told. If OTVII really made them cause over life.

    I wish I would have been allowed to discuss openly, without the consequence of being sent to Ethics, my very numerous perceptions and knowingnesses about what was wrong with Scientology. Simple things like Ron’s apparent nicotine addiction, the huge ego and need for worship I perceived Ron to have, and the fanaticism (and worship of Ron) that I felt Keeping Scientology Working and other literature was intended to produce.

    I wish I had perceived Scientology encouraging and accepting and respecting the accomplishment of being true to “what is true to you…..” when it was a negative about any part of it. But no, it had to be resolved…. It had to be eliminated.

    The doubt was only resolved when I ceased to apply Scientology’s Doubt formula which is very heavily loaded towards Scientology and towards making itself extremely relevant.

    All the time, the doubt was never between Scientology and me or another group.

    It was between me the Scientologist and me the soul yearning to be genuine. Yearning to be free to be true to its core: To its principles, values, wisdoms, awarenesses, viewpoints, ideals, goals and dreams.

    I did not need to evaluate “both” sides or do any of the doubt formula steps. All that was needed was my recognition and owning up of all that I had suppressed in order to become a Scientologist. That plus the willingness to experience being wrong is all it took.

    I never, ever have split myself again.

    Ron said, very smartly, that mechanics are inferior to considerations or postulates.

    The Scientology Doubt formula is just his mechanics. Quite likely created, from my viewpoint, to manipulate Scientologists into suppressing who they really are. Into suppressing the consideration you are a free being whose considerations and postulates deserve much more attention and respect than Ron’s or Scientology’s.

    Again, Just Bill, thank you a lot for offering each of us a chance, through your writings, to examine, evolve them, and express them.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @General Public:

    LRH's out-of-body adventures can be had by most everyone. He's at best a mid-level being in my book. Nothing stellar. DM is also in this category.

    Scientology is not about belief and I don't "believe" in Hubbard. It's about doing things and getting wins and ultimately improving your life and reaching OT.

    Remember that most Scientologists are out of the Church and don't follow it's degraded "modi operandi".

    ReplyDelete
  33. @R.Hill: I understand your concern. I consider myself much more able and compassionate than DM. There is no comparison and if my memory serves well, never has been either.

    Of course everyone should be saved. But as LRH says, you save the big boys first. This gets perverted as "helping the able". Able to pay that is. And we get a CoS full of dentists and chiros. No OTs there! Most OTs I've met are in terrible shape and would not qual or have $ for CoS anyways.

    Anyways, reform is bound to happen soon.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sorry Pascal, but you, apparently, do not know the definition of "belief". Scientology is all about belief.

    You say "Scientology is not about belief and I don't 'believe' in Hubbard. It's about doing things and getting wins and ultimately improving your life and reaching OT."

    You start with saying it isn't belief, but then you say you're "reaching OT". Um, no. There are no OTs. Scientology has not and cannot produce OTs. Yet you believe it can deliver it.

    That's belief is its purest form. Scientology is all about belief, and you really are a True Believer.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ok, let's rephrase a bit.

    Scientology is a practical thing. Not faith based.

    I do not believe in Scientology. I study it, apply it and get results. I have done so for many years. I have improved a lot and cannot conceive this ever stopping, all the way to OT, but that is me. I have witnessed OT phenomena in me and in others.

    I agree with you on there not being "big thetans" in CoS and on this planet in general. History confirms this so does a quick survey of this planet's conditions. Scientology is not responsible for people having no potential or for being too stupid to reach OT.

    I know I will reach OT, that you can say is faith. Just like I know tomorrow the sun will rise.

    I have many disagreements with LRH and can read between the lines re Admin and stuff put in for CoS' sake. After all CoS needs money, needs bodies, etc...

    Once Scientology gets govermnent funding and real OTs, things will calm down and start to look like people think they should.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Pascal,

    LOL! You said "I know I will reach OT, that you can say is faith. Just like I know tomorrow the sun will rise."

    There is a huge difference between the two "events". The sun has risen for millions of years, like clockwork. OTs have never been created by Scientology. Do you even get the difference there?

    I have no problem with your beliefs, just don't tell me that there is any factual basis for your beliefs, because I know there isn't. It's all fantasy.

    I understand people wanting it all to be true, but ... it isn't.

    You know, that was the hardest thing for me to come to terms with -- that Scientology wasn't the way to these "higher states". All the evidence says "no".

    ReplyDelete
  37. What evidence? Have you personally met everyone that ever applied Scientology to claim no OT's were ever produced? No. So we have a stalemate.

    I have experienced OT phenomena in me and others, so it is there to be gotten as far as I'm concerned. It seems you have never had this sadly.

    I have no need to believe in anything. I've seen myself go up the "chute" for many years using Scientology and have gone through many wild adventures. These experiences give me faith about my reaching OT. I can sympathise with people like you who haven't had similar experiences and hence stop using Scientology.

    Neither of us can make any claims factually. You're supported by an "apparency" and I'm supported by my "experiences". We can't back anything with any hard evidence.

    Let's agree to disagree on this one and move on to other topics.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Pascal,

    You assume I never experienced "OT phenomena". On the contrary, I have, many times.

    But many people do, and have for millennia. Anything you can point to as being "OT abilities" has been reported for as long as there is history.

    I experienced nice "abilities" before Scientology. There is nothing in Scientology that affects this. Some people have some powers -- and Scientology doesn't change that.

    It is nice that you believe that Scientology produced those "abilities", but people have had those abilities forever. Every religion and every belief system reports such "abilities" gained through their system.

    In my 30+ years, and the experiences of many, many people I've talked to about it, no one has experienced, through Scientology, any significant change from the abilities they already had.

    There have been some exceptions where some ability turned on after joining some religion, but that is reported for every religion.

    But I understand that I cannot alter the beliefs of a True Believer, so let's agree to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I believe that what Pascal really needs is the recogniton that he is one of the "big boys", a "big thetan". A superior, special being in a world crowded with inferior ones. Or maaybe it is that he needs that recognition for the technology of Scientology

    He makes a strong effort to set himself and the tech apart from the lowly inhabitants and from the past receivers of that tech who reside in this "dumpster or dumpsters" planet earth.

    I am of the belief that the practice of belittling serves, much more often than not, to create distance between oneself and the negative condition(s) one is assigning so as to make oneself or one's interests seem superior.

    The quest I would assign Pascal is to answer just for himself the "actual or true intentions" behind his communications and whether in communicating back and forth his viewpoints have evolved and he has improved because of it.

    See, I strongly believe that transparency and sincerity in communicating always leads to a growing and/or a higher awareness and an evolution of one's viewpoints and when they are absent you just get an argument and the compulsion of winning it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Bill: Yep, let's do so for now.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Luis: I have total certainty on my position on the food chain unfortunately. I don't need any "ack" from anyone on this. It's a terrible and lonely burden to carry. I often wish I were a regular joe but that life was never for me.

    And to answer your question, arguing is a sport I enjoy and it has helped me learn of other viewpoints. I care not for winning or losing, only in learning and enlightening other.

    ReplyDelete
  42. One of the unfortunate side-effects of Scientology is that it breeds a terrific arrogance, and a condescension towards "the rest of the human race." After all, we were the "top 1% of the top 1% of the human race." We were the capable ones, the able ones. We were the "not-quite-gone in the world of the long-gone." So we looked down on the "wogs." And this sort of elitist arrogance permeated Scientology. Those on the higher rungs looked down on those on the lower rungs. Higher orgs looked down on lower orgs. DM, I know, truly believes that he is vastly superior to the rest of humanity - and to the rest of Scientologists.
    Every cult does this to some degree. Theose who follow the true path are the chosen ones, the superior ones, and the rest of the human race is stupid, ignorant, evil, or inferior in some way.
    I have to think that if there ever really were a truly "superior being" that he or she would look on the rest of the human race with love and respect, not with contempt and arrogance. I personally am thankful to have regained, after leaving Scientology, a measure of humility and a respect of others no matter who they are or what they believe.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Big beings have terrible cases. DM is the biggest being in CoS in my opinion. Anyone bigger would have ousted him a long time ago.

    Yes, it's that pathetic. Welcome to Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Pascal,

    Um... Miscavige is a "big being"?

    Either you've never met him, or you have a very, very strange definition of "big being".

    David Miscavige is small, paranoid, petty, vicious and evil. He is a loser. Everything he has attempted he has failed miserably at. Trust me, this is not a big being by any sane definition.

    Many, many Scientologists were better, more effective, saner than DM. They are all gone or locked up. Some of them I might have called "big beings" -- but never DM.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dear Just Bill:

    Hi. You said in the original article:

    Below "Normal" is "Emergency", then "Danger", "Non-Existence", "Liability", "Doubt", "Enemy", "Treason" and, finally "Confusion".

    A bit later in the article, you said:

    Sorry for the digression into Scientologese, but it is important to understand that, in Scientology, doubt is a lower condition. It's bad! It's lower than "Enemy"!

    And in your first reply, you said:

    Tell me, anonymous Scientologist, if you want us to believe your BS, why would being undecided about ballroom dancing be a condition below Enemy?

    You have it wrong, sir. Go look at the first quote I made. You properly laid out the correct, descending order for the conditions, but you have it backwards in your subsequent reasoning. Doubt is just above Enemy, not below it.

    In fact, once you perform the Doubt forumla, you become a mere liability to whichever group you side with and an enemy to the other side. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp, and in a two-valued, either-or, black-and-white kind of world (which Scientology thinks it lives in), it makes perfect sense. If you limit your thinking to any sport with two teams, with Scientology as one team and "not-Scientology" as the other, it's easy to work this out. If you want to switch sides, score a goal for the other team. That'll move you up through Doubt, Liability, Non-Existence, and into Danger (from the side you just betrayed, if nothing else...) right quick. You could even clay demo it, if you were into that.

    Anyway, the fact that you went to some effort to point out that Doubt is below Enemy (when it's not) as if going into Doubt necessary makes you an Enemy (when it doesn't) and that this is part of the thought control (when it isn't) really, really calls into question your entire line of reasoning. What else could you be wrong about? What other alleged facts might you have wrong, which you have nevertheless employed in your quest to reason Scientology so wrong?

    What I want to know, however, is how could any Scientologist of any particular measure not know something as simple as Enemy is lower than Doubt? So how, really, can you claim to be "the Scientolgist" that folks can ask, when clearly you haven't even been through enough Ethics courses -- or cycles of your own -- to know the proper order of the conditions, even when you just typed up your own cheat sheet?

    I'm looking forward to how you handle this!

    =-John-=

    ReplyDelete
  46. @John,

    You are so right, Doubt is just above Enemy. As if that makes much of a difference! Why is doubt anywhere near "Enemy"?

    As the example given, a Scientologist wonders whether they should take up Ballroom dancing. So they are worse than a Liability? If they don't decide, they're an Enemy? WTF? Are you crazy?!

    What is doubt doing at such a low condition? You know and I know it's to control Scientologists! Of course, you can't admit it.

    You don't get the concept here!

    A Scientologist detects that something Hubbard said sure looks bogus. They will be "assigned Doubt" if they say so.

    A Scientologist realizes that what Misavige says sure appears to be a total lie. They will be "assigned Doubt" if they tell anyone.

    Now a sane organization would help the person discover the truth about things.

    Not so Scientology. The Doubt Formula contains absolutely nothing about resolving the situation. No, it goes immediately to: Them? Or us? Choose!

    Name what those two groups would be? Eh? Those who can see the bogus parts of Hubbard's stuff and True Believers? Those who can see through Miscavige's lies and gullible people?

    No.

    Getting into such a discussion is falling for the trick. There aren't two groups! The Doubt Formula is a bogus "solution". You will never, ever understand what is wrong with it, but for non-Scientologists, I will explain.

    What there is, in reality, is the individual and what he can find true or false -- what he can find works or doesn't work. He isn't deciding between two groups, you idiot! He is deciding what is true for himself!

    And that is what the Doubt Formula is designed to stop. Scientology cannot have the person thinking for themselves! That isn't allowed! No, it must be changed to them vs. us! Always "them vs. us"!

    That was my point. Which you TOTALLY MISSED!

    Whether it is just above Enemy or just below Enemy is truly unimportant. What is important is that it is a thought control trick, as I've just explained -- again.

    But, you will continue to misduplicate what I've said, because you must. You are well indoctrinated in Scientology's thought control technology, and you can no longer think independent thoughts.

    You are a perfect example of how Scientologists cannot think for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  47. LOL Bill...

    You're the one who made such a big deal of Doubt being below Enemy.

    Now, you're trying to backpedal... That's OK. It was a simple mistake.

    The point you're trying to make is that this Doubt formula is all a part of the thought control that keeps folks in Scientology, and you go to great lengths to elaborate on that point in your article.

    See? How hard was that to duplicate?

    Oh, but you still think "duplicate" means "completely agree with" from a previous post, so it's little wonder you're still a bit confused. That's another factoid that a "real former Scientologist" ought to know. Duplication is not the same as agreement.

    I get your idea, Bill. I duplicate it just fine. It's just that your idea included some inaccuracies -- the most obviously wrong of which involved believing that being in doubt was worse than being an enemy. Bzzzt, wrong.

    The other aspect of your assertion which is simply wrong is that the doubt formula, itself, is a method of that boogie man, thought control. This is false. It's the inability to actually perform the doubt formula -- due to the inability to honestly assess the true activities and intentions of the upper echelons of the Church of Scientology -- which make it impossible to properly do the forumla, which is the thought control. This doesn't make the formula bad or wrong.

    The doubt formula is just a pedantic, micromanagement-style method of getting someone to choose between two sides, based on certain beliefs about the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. As long as someone has the fixed idea that the Church of Scientology is the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics, without actually digging in and performing those first two steps of the formula, he can't ever do it correctly.

    Any Scientologist who applies Doubt to the Church, using the true and accurate information about the Church, brushing aside all bias and rumor (i.e. Church PR) can only come to one conclusion, and that is to leave the Church.

    You should be encouraging Scientologists to genuinely apply Doubt, using the true information to make an informed decision (and attacking that fixed idea that Scientology is necessarily the greatest good), not to dismiss it as thought control.

    ReplyDelete
  48. As a note on "John Cullison's" post. This is a common Scientology trick to take a discussion off track. He didn't address my primary point on how the Doubt Formula is a trick, to change an individual's simple quest for truth into a "Them vs. Us" battle where you must choose sides.

    No, he avoided that.

    He also side-stepped my question of why doubt is a "lower condition" in Scientology.

    He found an error in an aside I made, not important to my points, and treated it as if the error was key to everything.

    Is he stupid? Not really. It's just a debating trick -- that didn't work.

    By the way, any Scientologists who want to join in need to address the main points I've made.

    Would you consider someone who said that (now ex-) President Bush was lying to be worse than a liability to the United States, nearly an Enemy? That's exactly what Scientology does! What's the difference?

    If you were deciding to go to the movies, or stay at home and read a book, how the hell would the Doubt Formula be anything but stupid?

    If you were actually applying the Doubt Formula and one of the "groups" was the Church of Scientology, where would you get full, raw, accurate statistics on the church? Where would you get full, accurate, raw data on the church's activities and purposes? It's all hidden and you can't get it by asking for it, so how could you apply the formula?

    Scientologists, you answer those questions and I'll get back to you.

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  49. @John,

    Just repeating my words isn't understanding them, obviously. You don't, or won't, understand my point.

    You continue to pretend that "above Enemy", "below Enemy" was key to my point. It doesn't affect my main point at all. You still missed my point.

    But, I think that's deliberate.

    If Scientologists could get full and accurate data and statistics about their church, yes, they would leave immediately.

    But that has nothing to do with the Doubt Formula, that's just truth. People don't need to "apply formulas" to discover truth or to make decisions!

    Scientologists don't need the Doubt Formula, they just need the truth.

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  50. Doubt has such a bad name in scientology, as in many other thought systems, and the idea is to rid oneself of it for the personal good. There is an element of fear within doubt; from the occasions of mild uncertainty to existential terror. Removing doubt seems a good idea when this fear disappears as a result.

    Certainty is very attractive and in some instances not bad at all. It's when you are deluded within certainty that you need doubt to help break through to reality. Hubbard's thought system deliberately offered the security of certainty and the forcible control of doubt. His followers are grateful to him for doing something to them they were unable to do to themselves.

    People who are attracted to Hubbards' writings are scrambling for the treasure of certainty and are first fooled then prepared to give up their intuition, intellect and other human capacities: essential companions of doubt, in order to achieve it.

    It's not surprising that 'doubt' is so close to the concept of 'enemy'. Whether it's above or below 'enemy' is irrelevant. It's in Hubbard's interest to associate the two together, and is also accepted by his followers so readily because they see it as in their interests too.

    Discovering the importance of doubt is the true adventure and not that of the 'bridge to total freedom' which goes in the opposite direction leading to delusion and despair. The 'total freedom' which cult-members say they have, or wish for, is only the freedom from fear. But they have abrogated their responsibility to themselves and given it to a structure independant of them and one which they cannot influence, develop or change. They are subjected to a system which further restrains them from even thinking about it.

    The ability to face any kind of anxiety courageously alone has been crushed.-for this is a capacity which Hubbard never wanted anyone to have. Everyone has to rely on the perfection of the 'tech'.

    Hubbard as he promises security on one hand, brutally enhances fear on the other -to make the promises more attractive, in a series of calculated steps across the cynically named 'bridge'. And everyone of these steps works as a constantly active security check. You can imagine him saying to himself as he wrote OT3: "I've led them on so far, lets see who's with me after this."

    All those ex-cult members who now condemn this thought control have regained their capacity to doubt, their bravery to think for themselves and as a consequence their integrity. To rid onself of doubt, to 'conquer' doubt is only to suppress it. It has enormous value for our intellect and intuition and sometimes we should worry when it is not there because it is needed to help us become wise.

    Remaining in scientology is not only dangerously unwise it is also an act of supreme cowardice.

    ReplyDelete
  51. @Bill: DM is the biggest being in CoS in my opinion. That's my opinion. That is why he can maintain his position. There are bigger beings than him of course but not in CoS and few on this planet IMO.

    He is a loser yes, and I've delt with him in the past. No problem there.

    Size of being has nothing to do with competence by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @Bill: Someone doing doubt on CoS would leave if they were cowards. Someone with any concept of being cause would handle CoS and reform it.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @Pascal,

    "Someone doing doubt on CoS would leave if they were cowards. Someone with any concept of being cause would handle CoS and reform it."

    Um... no.

    That's a very silly statement. I would ask, if that is your opinion, why don't you?

    But that isn't important. There is and can be no obligation to "handle" the Church of Scientology, by anyone. It has nothing to do with courage.

    Scientologists, when they learn the truth of what has been done to them and to others by the church, will realize how deeply they have been betrayed, how thoroughly they have been fooled. Why on earth would they want to turn around and assist the organization that harmed them? That makes no sense at all!

    I, personally, think it takes great courage to see what is there and to leave.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Bill: A scientologist is someone that handles things. If the Church is wrong, a scientologist would handle it. Unless he were very stupid and unable with a huge button on self-importance.

    You imply finding fault with the Church equates finding fault with the religion. Now that is silly. Heresy is different from apostacy.

    Again we disagree on the usefulness of Tech so reforming the CoS for you seems silly and I get that. I myself see no better religion for the moment and will reform CoS as soon as I am in condition to do so as would any true scientologist do, as did DM himself when LRH left.

    ReplyDelete
  55. @Pascal,

    Again, no.

    You seem to think that there is some value in the Church of Scientology, and that it should be "fixed". What value? There is no value. Even to those who believe in Scientology, it has no value.

    If there is any value in Hubbard's technology, it is fully available outside of the church's abusive "control".

    If you go to a store, and they overcharge you and abuse you, do you "work to reform" the store, or do you take your business elsewhere?

    If you want to "reform the church", go ahead. But don't claim that anyone else has any obligation to do so, or that people are "stupid and unable with a huge button on self-importance" if they don't.

    The Church of Scientology was, IMHO, a mistake in the first place. Why should anyone want to continue that mistake?

    If there is any value in any of Hubbard's technology, let it survive in the real world. The church? Let it go. At its best, it never had any intrinsic value. At its current worst, it is a vast liability. It was only ever a legal trick. Let it go.

    ReplyDelete
  56. @General Public AYS,

    Your last posting is, to me, quite, quite wise especially:

    "All those ex-cult members who now condemn this thought control have regained their capacity to doubt, their bravery to think for themselves and as a consequence their integrity. To rid onself of doubt, to 'conquer' doubt is only to suppress it. It has enormous value for our intellect and intuition and sometimes we should worry when it is not there because it is needed to help us become wise."

    Scientology to me, attracts the very insecure. Those who can't stand on their own, can't generate and own up to their own viewpoints and actions for fear of experiencing rejection or failure, are scared about living in uncertainty, and hold a dim view of themselves and so they are totally dependent on the "anchor points" of another to gluide their viewpoints and existence.

    One of my BIGGEST wins that I had when I left Scientology, as you indicated, was in overcoming the fear of being wrong, of depending on myself for the accomplishment of my goals and dreams, of being able to live with my own insecurities or uncertainties.

    Empowering myself and disempowering Scientology and Ron was QUITE a process to me.

    But I gained a degree of integrity I never had, a harmony with myself I was not aware of existed and was needed, an acceptance of just being a regular human being that allows me to connect strongly and warmly to other people, and the freedom to be me and to become my own very best friend.

    We should all, who left Scientology, give ourselves and each other a standing ovation because, to me, it was and will be forever quite a transcendant accomplishment.

    ReplyDelete
  57. CoS infrastructure is great. CoS has the LRH archives, etc...

    Under competent leadership the aims of Scientology could be achieved IMO.

    It's a matter of opinion and how big a game you wanna play I guess.

    OT is about responsability on 8 dynamics. Anyone going OT would reform CoS and anything in his path. That's what theta does.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @Pascal,

    Oh, where to start!

    "CoS infrastructure is great."

    No, it's not. Period. The "organization" of the CoS is really, really bad. Really. See Scientology Admin Tech for just a start. No, it's really bad.

    "CoS has the LRH archives, etc..."

    So? Everything is available outside of the church, often in it's original, uncorrupted form.

    "Under competent leadership the aims of Scientology could be achieved IMO."

    No. The Aims of Scientology will never be achieved using Scientology. IMHO. In over 50 years, they have done nothing in that direction. Once again, you believe, I look for evidence.

    "It's a matter of opinion and how big a game you wanna play I guess."

    The Church of Scientology is, in comparison to the real world, a minuscule "game" with few players and absolutely no progress towards its purported goals. Not the "Aims of Scientology", not OT, not Clear. It is not a worthwhile "game" and it emphatically is not "big".

    "OT is about responsibility on 8 dynamics. Anyone going OT would reform CoS and anything in his path. That's what theta does."

    First, no one has, or will be "going OT" via Scientology. Second, why would anyone, knowing the truth, knowing the corruption, knowing the harm perpetrated by the church, want anything to do with it? Why? It has no value.

    If Scientology is available elsewhere (and it is) what use is this "church"? Its purported value is as the source of "pure" Scientology, yet it has been the source of nothing but corruption. It is, as I said, only a liability. It isn't worth the effort to "fix" it.

    You believe in things that do not exist, and this blinds you to the reality of what does exist. There is no "game" there. There is no ultimate attainment of OT there. There is no value there. That's reality.

    Some of what is known as Scientology may be of value, but the "church" is a liability to that as well. If there is anything of value, it can only be developed and recognized outside of this bogus "church". Let the "technology" survive in the real world, if it can. Let the church sink into its own corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @Bill: CoS has lots of MEST and $, to let it rot would be silly. CoS has more LRH stuff than anyone. To say otherwise is childish and cannot be proven. CoS has done little in the past 50 years, granted. Christianity did little before Constantine and Justinian, etc... CoS will get it's share in time.

    Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @Pascal,

    Well, we will always disagree on this.

    ReplyDelete
  61. A couple of comments.

    Scientology is not "a big game." Once you get your head out of the bubble, you can see it for what it is - a very small cult with, at most, 20,000 to 30,000 active members worldwide. And shrinking every day. They don't have a huge infrastructure. I've worked at the top. It is a fragile house of cards.

    The idea that "anyone going OT would reform the Church of Scientology" is a bit of idealistic BS. Anyone who is "on the Bridge" is toeing the line. They are not speaking out as they know that the moment they do, they will jeapordize their "OT Eligibility." They will have to see the Ethics Officer, do conditions (including "Doubt"), pay for expensive "PTS handlings" and the rest of it. Is anyone seriously "reforming the Church"? No one. Not even our friend Pascal. The smart ones are getting out.

    Scientology requires a HUGE level of faith and belief. Belief that one can achieve "OT" even though no one ever has, including Hubbard himself. Belief that "Scientology Works" even though it's results are sporadic at best and it NEVER gets its advertised "EPs."

    It requires a huge amount of control to keep Scientologists in line and keep them from asking the wrong questions. And one of them is to criminalize doubt and convince people it is a "lower condition."

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Cactus: All religions start small and wacky. Check out how Peter and Paul started their Church. Nevermind Mohammad. Organized religion is a bitch. As for CoS OTs being DM's bitches sure. CoS is devoid of anyone bright and has been for a while. Anyone with a must have on CoS "OT levels" is far from what I would call "bright" and "OT". I get great wins and cogs daily on my own and have no need for CoS.

    Yep, CoS cannot now have doubters, it's too weak and young. Doubters cause too much trouble so they become scapegoats for the sake of the herd that "knows better".

    But these things will change, all religions go through this cycle of maturity. DM will be gone one day and things can only get better.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Luis

    Thanks for the compliment. I was never in scientology but I did take a 'personality test' 30 years ago. Allow me to tell you about it.

    The 'shop' where it was done was always getting it's windows smashed and I was curious to know what all the fuss was about. The test showed that I was racked with anxiety. Well, I knew that already - which adolescent isn't! As the guy seeing to me gave me the paper to fill in, he said, that if I wanted to add anything I could write on the back. Which I did: some mild criticism of the vagueness of the questions. He completely ignored them which I found insulting when it was his idea in the first place.

    He proceeded in the attempt to sell me 'Dianetics'. I told him I didn't have the money to buy one and anyway I'd looked into it briefly already, and found the style unreadable. After that he just ignored me, which I also found insulting. I left with the impression that selling me the book was the only thing he was interested in. He blew the big chance to recruit another victim.

    That's not entirely true. As soon as my borrowed copy of Hubbard's book began to use new and strange words when I opened it, I was saved by Orwells dictum which emphasised the necessity for plain and uncomplicated language when trying to explain or describe something. I didn't know that Orwell had actually written a book which illustrated scientology's unhappy core. I thought that 1984 was just about Stalin and Hitler.

    It was actually Arnie Lerma's use of the epithet 'faschist' which got me interested in looking closer. Mainly because I do not like the term to be misused, as it often is, so that the strength of it as a description of a totalitarian form is reduced to just being an insult thrown at people you don't like: traffic wardens, swimming bath attendants, doormen at night clubs etc.

    But Arnie provided the evidence. I said to myself then: "If I was suffering from constipation this would clear it!" Because the horror of the previous generation's efforts to rid the world of an evil regime might have to be repeated by us if we do not act in time.

    Most of the information to be gained from the internet is down to those that got out of the cult. It's verifiable importance was handed to us in a situation dangerous to themselves. We who were once ignorant can only be grateful to them, and to the non-members who in supporting them suffered too.

    A standing ovation is the least you all deserve. If you see me stop clapping it is because my hands are sore. I wish you Luis, and everyone else the very best.

    ReplyDelete
  64. @Pascal,

    You have a huge misconception here.

    Most "religions" fail and disappear.

    There are dozens of "new religions" every year. There are only a very, very, very few who continue after a short time. In the history of man, there are far more religions that have disappeared than currently still exist.

    There is no inevitability of the Church of Scientology's existence into the future. Since it has no intrinsic value and, in fact, is a huge liability to the "technology" it is supposed to be promoting, it is almost a certainty that it will be one of those vast majority of new religions that simply disappears.

    You have "faith" and you "believe", and that makes it hard for you to simply face reality. The Church of Scientology is disappearing and soon there will be no one left who cares.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I think Pascal is 'TAKING THE PISS' as we say here in Dublin, and it's got nothing to do with drinking Guinness. It means he's wasting our time 'entertaining himself' which is a euphemism for something Hubbard said was bad for the health and advised people not to indulge in.

    I recommend and nominate him for the "Most Useless And Boring OSA Operative 2009." even though we've got another ten months to yawn through !

    ReplyDelete
  66. @Danny Boy,

    Nicely put!

    What the trolls haven't realized yet is that each time they say something stupid (and what else can they say?) they give me an opportunity to expound and elaborate on my points.

    They help me make my points because Scientologists find it quite difficult to act normal or sane.

    Thanks for the summing up of Pascal's posts! LOL!

    ReplyDelete

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.