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.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Scientology Agree/Disagree

In the Philadelphia Doctorate Courses, L. Ron Hubbard spoke quite a bit about agree and disagree. Agreement is effect and disagreement is cause. If you agree with someone, you are the effect of what they say. If you disagree with someone, you are at cause. According to Hubbard.

He also stated that the basis for controlling people is agreement. The basic principle of hypnotism is agreement. If you enforce agree-agree-agree on someone, you will, eventually, completely control them.

Well, guess what is not allowed in the Church of Scientology? You may not disagree with anything Hubbard or David Miscavige has ever said. Period.

In Scientology, if you say you disagree with Miscavige or Hubbard, it means you are wrong, you "have misunderstoods" (words you do not understand), you must be handled until you agree. Everything stops for you until "your misunderstoods are handled" -- meaning, until you agree.

You cannot say, "Oh, I don't agree with that, but this seems OK." No, you are required to agree with everything in Scientology.

Scientologists are very fond of saying "In Scientology, what is true is what you, yourself have found to be true." And they are quite adamant that they "didn't agree" until after they studied and tried some bit of Scientology.

And this is true. They studied something, they tried it, and they agreed that "it worked."

But understand this very, very clearly. That agreement is not a decision or a choice. That is a specific, required sequence. After the Scientologist tries something from Scientology, he or she must agree that "it works".

If the Scientologist finds that something from Scientology doesn't work, it means, according to Scientology, that the Scientologist is wrong and must be corrected and corrected, until the Scientologist "finds it works".
An Instructor or Supervisor or Executive must challenge with ferocity instances of "unworkability". They must uncover what did happen, what was run and what was done or not done.
L. Ron Hubbard - Keeping Scientology Working
As a Scientologist travels deeper into Scientology, further "up The Bridge", their agreement becomes more set. They are more and more at effect. No disagreement, no cause -- just agreement. How odd for a methodology that is supposed to be making people more at cause.

For a Scientologist to try something from Scientology and find it doesn't work is forbidden.

For a Scientologist to disagree with anything Hubbard or Miscavige has said is forbidden.

With Scientology, you do have enforced agreement.

In Scientology, you very specifically have agree-agree-agree.

Every Scientologist, then, agrees with every other Scientologist about Scientology. They are all in perfect agreement on every little thing that Miscavige or Hubbard ever said. No matter what, they all agree.

Isn't that amazing?

Here is a quote from Hubbard on that subject:
The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans [people] without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles.
L. Ron Hubbard - Keeping Scientology Working
Ah, the irony! A group that is in total and complete agreement is a group agreeing only on bank (bad, unevaluated) principles. And a group that suppresses disagreement and enforces agree-agree-agree is working very hard to hypnotically control its members.

According to L. Ron Hubbard.


  1. You just don't get it. Ron gave us the technology to really help people. All your arguments are invalid because Scientology really DOES work when properly applied! If one has such an effective technology, one does not mess with it.

    That's what this is all about, preserving the tech so that it remains 100% pure and 100% effective. This isn't about some secret conspiracy to hypnotize or control people, it's only about preserving the tech and helping people.

  2. Actually, I do get it. You don't.

    This is a very important point that Scientologists have failed to grasp: Challenging "with ferocity" reports of unworkability, and effectively silencing such reports is not the same as actually having a 100% workable technology. Just because Scientology suppresses 100% of the reports of it not working does not mean it does work.

    And ensuring that all Scientologists disagreements about Scientology are completely suppressed does not, magically, make Scientology valid.

    The test of effectiveness isn't whether the Church of Scientology says it is effective or not. The test of effectiveness isn't whether the Church of Scientology can silence all negative reports or not. The only test of effectiveness is -- does it produce the promised results. Well, Scientology does not produce any of its promised results.

    Silencing all complaints does not change that.

  3. Oh, and by the way, that "preserving the tech so that it remains 100% pure" thing? You already lost that battle.

  4. Um, Anonymous? Miscavige has been altering Hubbard's tech for years. You don't actually buy Miscavige's claim that he somehow managed to spot thousands of 'transcription errors' that Hubbard himself missed do you?

    Preserving the tech indeed.

  5. I hope our anonymous scientologist friend returns...but they rarely do, when faced with the irrefutable truth.

  6. Yes, I do love a good debate, but those have been getting very sparse lately.

    The problem is that good debating requires intelligence -- and all the intelligent Scientologists have seen what is going on and have left (or are "sitting on their hands" waiting for someone to fix things).

    The less observant and less intelligent Scientologists just can't hold up their end of a debate. I really did enjoy those earlier back-and-forth arguments.

  7. Oh the irony. Good post. I'll have to see if I have the Philadelphia Doctorate Courses and have a listen.

    I also wonder if that first commenter was an actual Scientologist, but who knows.

    Silly, isn't it? Scientology works, but only if you do it just right. Pretty high failure rate if that's true since humans are apt to error. Also, it means it's not very useful since it apparently requires exact precision to work and...again, no one is perfect.

    So, in the end how many people have actually got Scientology to work with 100% effectiveness? Not many I should think. Scientology, for what it is (self-help pseudo-psychology, not rocket science), is deeply flawed and useless if it is rendered ineffective with the smallest error. Tools and technologies that require such precision generally have a narrow purpose and application, but Scientology is supposed to have very broad applications, if so then it should be resistant to human error and work even when not applied 100% correctly. Or am I being too optimistic?


    P.S. Yeah, I miss those debates you used to get in, too. They were interesting reading.

  8. @CR

    Good points. As you say, apparently, the technology requires such an exact application that no one has or will ever be able to make it work.

    "Scientology works". Yeah, sure it does. When does that start?

  9. Hi Just Bill.

    YOu are mentioned today in a You Tube video:


  10. Thanks Luis,

    I like it. In case anyone wants to see the original articles he is reading, he's combined most of If Scientology Worked and Scientology: Why Doesn't It Work? -- and has done it quite nicely, too.

  11. I added a couple of comments to direct people back to this blog. I am indignant on your behalf that they did not include the links in the info section.

    The words are wise. The man is Just Bill.

  12. Hi Bill - very funny to read.

    "forbidden" in SCN terms is not-ising.

    And this never works nor leads anywhere - it's bulding up ridges.

    Have fun.

  13. What is needed is the total as-ising of SCN in order to *understand* it fully (thus being it!) and then recreate it with a NEW name - this would be the job of the world's best top level auditors - and keep away any "staff" (groups, respectively 3rd dynamic banks). Only those would dare to work outside the org even and still knowing they serve the true blueprint!


    Believe it or succumb.
    This process will be needed again after some decades because it will be infiltrated again - and recreated again - and infiltrated again...

    This only ends up whith total as-ising of MEST.


    Thetans NEVER give ip - so, what's the problem?


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.