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.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Ask a Question

One of these days, I really need to go back through the previous Ask a Questions and pull out the good stuff -- and somehow present it in a better format.  There really are some great questions and discussions in Ask a Question - 1 and Ask a Question - 2.

But, once again, the most recent Ask a Question got unwieldy, so let's start a new one.

You want to know something about Scientology or the Church of Scientology, ask here!  You have a suggestion?  Put it here.  You want to start an argument or discussion?  Here is the place.  All non-troll, non-spam comments, suggestions, arguments, corrections are greatly appreciated.
-

199 comments:

  1. By all indications (I use AnonSparrow's videos on YouTube as a reference, with only a few public entering the D.C. org all day), the orgs are not thriving. Exactly how do they stay open? Is upper management footing chipping in? I was under the impression the orgs were on their own to keep the lights on, as well as send money up the lines.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Re: Church survival

    You are correct. Orgs are absolutely on their own to keep the lights on and also send money up lines.

    Many are months behind on rent and other bills. Staff are not getting paid. Miscavige has never been willing to send any money back down the lines to help. One assumes he knows that this won't solve anything and will just drain money out of his coffers.

    With the winding down of Anonymous protests in many places, there are no longer observers at all the orgs. I'm thinking if we still had observers, we would see that a number of the smaller orgs have already closed or are only open part-time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Have you seen this blog on Marty?

    http://barbaraschwarz.wordpress.com/

    Greetings
    Eric Steiner
    sbreeze08@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. What is the DC Org going to do to Sparrow and Radio Paul now that they have raised the stakes?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Questions about the return of Hubbard -- or not. Where do you think Hubbard went for the past 24 years? Where is he now? Will he ever return? If not, why not. If so, how will he return?

    What is all this "return of Hubbard" mythology about in actuality?

    ReplyDelete
  6. SignPost from California said...

    Are Sparrow and Radio Paul safe in DC now that they haved raised the anti. Or do I have to come out there and back them up?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love watching sparrow's videos. The "church" says that the DC org has 200 public on line regularly. The vids show that maybe, there are regularly about 20 public. Way downstat.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Re: Protests, Sparrow, Radio Paul, etc.

    The Church of Scientology is powerless. Yes, they can break the law and hit or fair game, but they know they are breaking the law and they know, with all the cameras around, they will get caught -- and make Scientology look bad.

    So then what? If they can't break the law, what can they do? Nothing. Because what they are fighting is the truth. There is no law that will allow them to suppress the truth.

    The old days, when their lies and planted evidence worked, are over. No court falls for their lies any more. No government falls for their lies any more. Their weapons are useless because lies are all they have.

    As long as protesters have cameras and witnesses, the church is powerless.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What possibly is the point of the Mission Earth series? It contains some simply bizarre and crude passages. Does not seem like entertainment for a SciFi audience or any audience.

    What would be the expected goal or takeaway from reading this series? I don't think it does much to promote the cause of a mental science to help all mankind.

    Any info on the series' background or history?
    Very confused.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Re: Mission Earth

    Battlefield Earth and Mission Earth were attempts by Hubbard to re-create the environment of the 50s. You see, in the 50s, Hubbard was a popular science fiction writer, then he wrote Dianetics, and it was immensely popular.

    So his "bright idea" was to dash off some science fiction works which, of course, would become terribly popular and then, voila, Dianetics and Scientology would magically become immensely popular again!

    What he didn't figure into his calculations was (a) science fiction has moved on from the pulp days and is quite a bit higher quality these days, and (b) the 50s interest in the occult and the paranormal was what made Dianetics popular not Hubbard's name -- and the world has moved on from that as well.

    So, as everyone knows, it didn't work.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Re: Barbara Schwarz

    Nope, hadn't seen it. How very, very strange.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why do scientologists call people "psychotic"? Isn't psychosis a diagnosis used by psychiatrists and psychologists? And since it's a diagnosis made by psychs isn't it a hoax used to drug, lobotomize and shock people?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Bill`

    I need clarification on confidentiality of auditing and Confessional folders.

    My understanding is that auditing files are confidential, but in a fit of paranoia LRH decreed any info in them could be transferred to a Confessional folder, thus no information is confidential.

    However, Aaron Saxton said that he would elicit information after auditing sessions to put in
    Confessional files from people, presumabley because he couldn't get them from auditing files.

    One guy said to him, "Why are you asking me? I just share the information in an auditing session.

    Please correct my understanding. Thx.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Re: Psychotic

    I'm pretty sure the word is not used in any official Scientology course. But you are right, when Scientologists use psychiatric terms, they are being hypocritical.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just Bill,
    What are your thoughts on all the old tired chubby scientologist staff and public--the ones that have been the diehard holdouts for Hubb's eternity teck. You see them on all the youtube vids and they all have the same frumpy look and nicotine addiction (which is very out pr I might add).

    You would think that year after year of seeing "no change in the preclear"(scientology)and seeing only each other manning the guns while watching what few puplic coming in leaving just as fast, that they would at least look for answers and get some inkling on their situation. Not only that but the only new somewhat lasting young blood that they see are the kids of their own peer group. You would think that would jiggle the gray cells a bit!

    What are they being told that makes them so obedient to old dead ron (who ain't coming back)??

    ReplyDelete
  16. Was the "return of Hubbard" question above not appropriate, too silly, or you just missed it? Very sincerely curious about this and what was told at the funeral event in '86.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Re: Appropriate

    Your question was fine, it sometimes takes me awhile to get around to moderating. The only questions that I reject are spam, trolling, insulting questions. Anything else, I'm happy.

    Re: Why Scientologists stay

    This is something I've been attempting to explain for over two years. What is it about Scientology that engenders such a willingness to blind yourself to reality?

    Check out my series on thought control, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.

    Scientology is an amazing concatenation of logical sounding theories, sales tricks, amazing promises, effective thought control technologies and a small amount of practical applications that seem to work. A person is sold on the small amount of stuff that seems to work and buys into the amazing promises. It's hard to give those amazing promises up.

    Today, with the Internet, Scientology's whole sales routine falls apart because Scientology's actual results are now clearly available. Today, people know the amazing promises are false.

    Re: Hubbard death announcement

    I was there at the 86 "event". It was the most amazing collection of lies - of course, I was a believer at the time. They announced LRH had completed his research up to OT 15 (or 45, or something). They announced he was continuing his research out of his body. And they announced he'd "gone on to Target 2". No one said he was coming back or intended to come back.

    Apparently, LRH took all his research material with him. Nothing above OT 7 existed in his notes.

    He also neglected to leave a forwarding address. No one knows where this "Target 2" is.

    As you said, he doesn't seem to be coming back.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi just Bill.

    I have a fresh comment and a question.

    I loved your lightbulb joke, but was slightly disappointed when you characterized the Independents as humorless. Yes, I will concede that a lot of their observations on the blogs are pretty grim. However, I ask you to look again at the post on Marty Rathbun's blog of the same date -- specifically, his wedding and the following festivities, which are full of humor and joy. Although some of these people may have lost their sense of humor in re their own faith path and the abuses of the church, I feel, with time, that it will return as they forge their own faith and recover from their wounds. A lot of them have recovered their sense of humor much more than you think. But please -- keep directing humor at them -- sooner or later, they will laugh with you!

    My question is: may I share the lightbulb joke with some Independents I know, or would that be squirreling? ;)

    Sincerely, Spike

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Spike

    You make a good point when you differentiate between Scientologist's attitude toward life and their attitude towards Scientology. I have no doubt that Scientologists can be quite happy and funny as long as it has nothing to do with Scientology belief and goals. After all, that was me not too many years ago. I remember.

    If you can't laugh at yourself, you are lost -- and Scientologists cannot laugh at themselves or other Scientologists, it is an Ethics offense.

    When/if the hard-core Independent Scientologists start telling Independent Scientology jokes, that will be a very good sign.

    Gee, I don't know about sharing the lightbulb joke, I'll have to work up some drills, a checksheet, an internship...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous PatriotJuly 16, 2010 at 6:16 AM

    Sharron Angle's association with scilons Joy Westrum and her husband and the Second Chance Program raise the question of how directly OSA is involved in "handling" politicians.

    I assume that all front groups are under the control of OSA and therefore the handling of Sharron Angle was under its control and direction via Joy Westrum and The Second Chance Program.

    Another case arises with Greta Van Susteren and John Coale in relationship with the Clintons and now with Sarah Palin.

    Here the connection with OSA seems even more probable since they are scilon celebrity lawyers and worked with OSA on legal strategy for filing 3500 lawsuits against the IRS and the Ritalin Wars.

    Travolta's subverting the Clintons to achieve cult ends is another case as well as Tom Cruise doing the same in the Bush administration.

    Is OSA "suggesting" to its public celebs the positions and goals it wants to achieve? Or is there more direct control?

    The bottom line is that I want to write to politicians and say:

    "Whenever you and other politicians are in contact with a 'representative of the Church' you are being handled by the Church's intelligence agency (OSA)to do the following

    1. Legitimize Scientology as a valid religion.
    2. Promote anti-psychiatry legislation
    3. Promote government contracts with Scientology front groups, particularly Narconon and Applied Scholastics.
    4. Discredit those Scientology considers its 'enemies'

    Whenever you associate *politically* (i.e. not socially) with a public or celebrity Scientologist you are also being 'handled' indirectly through them."

    I would appreciate your correction and clarification of these issues. With the possibility of Sharron Angle becoming our first useful idiot US Senator for the cult this is an issue of some consequence.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Bill,
    I undertand that Scientology is a big bait and switch scheme. You start with the wish to learn more about yourself and before long you're on planet-saving duty. How do they manage to "sell" you this bigger concept without making you stop and think? The transition must be very cunning.

    And why do you demand word verification before posting? To make it impossible for OSA robots to harrass you? ...:)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Just Bill. I hope you are having a great summer. My question is : What do you think about Mikes interview in Austrailia yesterday. My own opinion is that it was mostly just PR for the planned return of SCN that he and Marty and others are putting together. I would like to be proved wrong. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi, Just Bill. This is Spike. You were so thoughtful in your response to my first question, and now I've had a rather disappointing experience which I wanted to share with you and ask your opinion upon, as I'm absolutely flummoxed.

    You see, although I was never a Scientologist, I was in a cult myself -- a very, very small one -- and so once I left, I of course discovered the post boards that would evolve into all these related sites on Scientology. I've been watching for years, but only recently felt moved to reach out and help some of those who have left the church but wish to practice what they find of value in their religion. So I wrote a song saluting the Independent Scientologists, thinking that I was reaching out to all who stand against the cult's abuses.

    I didn't think that I would suddenly become a target myself. I thought -- and even said to my nervous husband -- that the church of miscavology had way better fish to fry than an unknown folksinger. I had no idea that I would become the center of this flap:

    http://forums.whyweprotest.net/325-mark-marty-rathbun/independent-scientology-theme-song-pour-69590/

    I will admit to being not at my politest, and I am not proud of my tone, but not a single person on the forum had one constructive thing to say, nor would they engage on any adult level for a serious debate. No matter what I said, they had pegged me as an enemy, simply because I wrote a folksong for Marty, Mike and the bunch. I realize that there's lots of folks who have differing views on the integrity and intentions of these guys, but the reaction I got was so hateful, I almost felt like I'd been mugged in a meadow.

    Now, Just Bill, I know that you have as little to do with the commenters on that page as I have connections to the Japanese Mafia, but the whole incident has colored my views, and I wanted to know your honest opinion -- why is it so impossible for folks to put down their axes and have an honest talk, despite their differences? After all, the Church of Mi$cavige is our common enemy, so why all the animosity between the varying troops: Ex-Sci, Indie-Sci, Freezone, Anonymous and the like?

    Also, perhaps you'd like to address the question no one bothered to answer at the Anonymous forum. Where can/should a non-Scientologist go to get an accurate viewpoint as to what's going on? Most of my friends and co-workers think I'm crazy, but I see a serious injustice here, and I want to help, and I want to get others to help. So where can I send my friends who want to know more?

    I'm sorry this is so long, but you seem like one of the few with the patience to answer this.

    Spike

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Anonymous Patriot

    Re: Sharon Angle, Clintons, Sarah Palin, Bush, et. al.

    For anyone who is not familiar with the Church of Scientology's methods, let me be very clear about this:

    No Scientologist would be allowed to have contact with a politician without careful and close supervision from the very top of the church. Any contact would have a full and detailed project put together with Major Targets, Minor Targets, Conditional Targets, ad nauseum.

    There would be very specific goals to be attained -- the politician would be targeted for delicate manipulation to attain those goals you listed as well as others. This is mostly done by providing the politician with false information.

    Don't think these political contacts are accidental or casual. The initial contact might have been accidental, but all further contact would be closely controlled and reported.

    Note that even social contact between a politician and a Scientologist, except for the most casual contacts, would come under the church's control.

    Yes, the Church of Scientology works very hard to manipulate all the politicians they can. If a politician has continued contact with a Scientologist, I guarantee they are being manipulated by the church, at least as far as the church is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Re: Bait and switch

    Yes, Scientology is, very much, a bait and switch.

    I've tried to explain, as one of my goals in this blog, how relatively normal, intelligent people can be conned into Scientology. I can't really sum it up in a sentence, but, as you said, it is cunning. The earlier stuff often works, or seems to work. The message is continual and consistently positive, "Scientology works! Scientology has all the answers!" There is no part of Scientology that allows for doubt or imperfection. Many of my earlier articles touch on these things.

    The word verification is there to weed out plain old spambots.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Bob R

    I haven't yet had a chance to see the Australian interview with Mike. Not sure how soon I'll have time.

    But I can tell you that no "Independent Scientologist" will ever say anything bad about LRH or Scientology. If they said anything critical or questioning about Scientology or LRH, they would be shunned by all the other True Believers.

    I'm sure the interview was just that. Mike and Marty, and the rest, still want this to become a "Scientology world" and they still are working toward that goal -- and they will never allow themselves to see the current massive failures of Scientology to be exactly that. All of Scientology's consistent and huge failures will always be blamed on "someone else", never LRH and never the tech.

    But don't worry about some mythical "return of Scientology". Remember, they have to use Scientology tech to do that -- and that tech has only resulted in decline and collapse.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Spike

    Ah! Trust me, you cannot and will not ever get anything but hazing from WhyWeProtest, or any Anonymous site. That's what they do. Especially if you sound the least bit pro-Scientology.

    Don't take it personally, they haze everybody.

    As for the deeper question as to why there is so much animosity between all the groups, that's what Scientology does -- not just the Church of Scientology, but the Independents as well.

    That attitude of "It's them vs. us - and they are EVIL!" was hard-coded into Scientology by L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard was very, very big on painting everyone but his most devoted followers is EVIL! Leaving Scientology, questioning or criticizing Scientology was EVIL!

    So that's just an intrinsic part of Scientology. If you believe in Scientology, then you must also believe that everyone who isn't pro-Scientology is evil.

    Add to that the known fact that the Church of Scientology, via its OSA group, actively promotes conflict by posting as Anonymous, or Freezone, or Independents, or Critics and attacking any and all of the other groups. Many in those groups fall for this trick and attack back. At the base of it all, there is the Church of Scientology, stirring the pot, making sure it remains at a high boil.

    There are sites that present a more balanced view of the whole thing. Direct your friends to Wikipedia. Scientology is a good starting place for general information and Scientology controversies is a good starting place for why people are opposed to it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Re: Bait and switch

    Thanks for replying, Bill, but my question was quite specific: Going from self-improvement to saving the planet is a quantum leap, I was hoping you could explain how the member is coaxed(?) into joining the global crusade. The question about word verification was a joke (or an attempt to be funny...)

    While I'm at it: Why are so many scios smoking? Is it because 'LRH' did it? Do they really believe it helps to prevent lung cancer (according to Hubbard) or is it a way to deal with the constant pressure?

    Enjoy the ssummer and keep up this great site.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Re: Bait and switch

    Sorry for not answering your specific question (and for not getting your joke).

    The "saving the planet" comes naturally from the idea, "If we can completely solve your problems, we can solve everyone's problems -- and banish war, crime, (fill in any problem) as a result!" Or, to put it another way, the individual becomes "Clear" through Scientology and then is (allegedly) sane, healthy and clear-thinking. By extrapolation, a "Cleared Planet" would be filled with sane, healthy and clear-thinking people.

    And that is why Scientologists all work toward a "Cleared Planet". Which is pretty darn altruistic of them, since each and every Scientologist hasn't gotten those promised gains from Scientology -- but hopes everyone else will get them.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Re: Smoking Scientologists

    Yes, there are a lot of Scientologists who smoke -- and I think it's because Hubbard smoked. They want to be "just like Hubbard" so many of them smoke (though I don't think too many of them smoke "Kools").

    Of course, since Hubbard said smoking prevented lung cancer, they almost have to smoke, don't they? It's a health thing.

    ReplyDelete
  31. re: bait amd switch / smoking

    No need to apologize. Thanks, it'S all very "clear" now. What if scios knew that Hubbard had psych drugs in his body when he kicked the bucket...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous PatriotJuly 27, 2010 at 6:25 AM

    @Just Bill: Thanks for the great reply on politicos and OSA handling.

    ReplyDelete
  33. hey Bill, loooove the blog. great stuff. in your opinion, and apologies if you've answered this already, how long do you give the church in light of the past five years? 2005 to 2010(TC going insane, Southpark, Anon, the St Pete Squad, etc...) has got to be the worst PR period in the church's history, no? so what with all the plunging decline in membership and the consistently empty orgs, how long can it be practically expected to exist? 5 years? a decade? if 2005-2010 constitutes the sheerest drop so far, do you have a figure in mind for how long the thing will actually take to collapse and no longer exist as a viable entity at all? an words would be appreciated, thx.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Re: How long?

    Well, I have answered this before, but I don't mind revisiting it.

    First, the Church of Scientology is already no longer a "viable entity". It is rotten at the core. As a business (which it really is) it is no longer self-sustaining -- meaning it cannot live on income from its customers. Most customers have left, and those that are still there have little money.

    The church's other, current "business", that of sucking every last dime out of its customers for "donations" to IAS, Ideal Org, etc., is still making money for David Miscavige, and so he will continue it. This scam is mainly preying on the few wealthy Scientologists left.

    Miscavige will continue the façade of the church as long as that scam continues to make money. But that scam now has a very, very limited life -- I can't see it continuing more than a few years, if that.

    But just as a legal entity, the "Church of Scientology" may go on -- that's hard to predict. If it gets destroyed when Miscavige runs away, then someone, somewhere will undoubtedly start another Scientology "church", but that would not be particularly successful.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Bill,

    When there is one of the big "ideal org" openings or other events, but the crowd are mostly imported Sea Org folks from out of town, what's the thought process for the handful of folks who are actual members of the Org? Do they even let themselves think about the fact that there are so few people from the area there?

    What's the rationalization used for your typical public or staff member?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Re: Rationalization - nobody is there

    Since I've been out awhile, I can be certain how the rationalizations are going, but I can tell you how it was done for years when I was in.

    There are standard Scientology justifications for so few Scientologists at events, on course, whatever.

    First, "the millions of Scientologists exist, but they just aren't active right now."

    And why aren't they active? "They are out-ethics." "They are PTS to the middle class." "Earlier errors in studying or auditing." There are hundreds of reasons why reality doesn't match what the church says.

    Also, "Scientology is booming everywhere -- except right here" is a common belief.

    I assume that's pretty much what Scientologists are thinking.

    Definition: "PTS to the middle class" means adopting middle class values (wanting "things") instead of Scientology values (going up the Bridge).

    ReplyDelete
  37. The discussion on here is great, imo.

    An addendum to Just Bill's answer, if I may, to put in broader historical perspective how Scientologists explain the sparse attendance, lack of new business--and, in general, people's failure to get lasting "gains" from the tech:

    The same way Aztec priests explained why no matter how many hearts they tore out, it didn't rain, and how the Holy Roman Church explained why no matter how much the peasants tithed and prayed, they still died of the plague--the cunning, unanswerable explanation was that there was something wrong with the people, the sacrifices, the prayers--and maybe there were demons (suppressives) or maybe witches (degraded beings) in the community. Original sin is the Judeo-Christian tradition is replaced by Scions with "body thetans" and "pts-ness" and "out ethics."

    I am convinced that if Scientology ever ruled the earth, they would be as ruthless as any former religion in blaming, scapegoating and destroying people.

    An intriguing question, for me, is:

    What conditions of nature or nurture make ordinary humans so vulnerable to utterly destructive power grabs as described above? Can we be "immunized" against them?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thank you so much Bill for your reply.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hello Bill,

    I learned about OT 3 through the South Park episode, but there are still things that keep bugging me: I think the story itself is pretty accurate, but it says that the brainwashed thetans roamed the earth until the arrival of man, and then they attached themselve to our bodies. But who are we really (according to Hubbard)? Is Incident 2 somehow connected to the emergence of the human race (this question angered T. Davis so much that he left the interview), are we Marcabian prisoners brought to this 'prison planet'? Why was it significant that the thetans formed clusters?
    Please help me get out of my current condition - confusion! A short concise overview would be enough. Thx in advance

    German Anonymous

    P.S. The newest report from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is out: Scn lost approximately 1.000 members over the last 12 months. Down to 4.500

    ReplyDelete
  40. Re: OT III, Incident 2

    Oh dear! You are asking me to explain things that Hubbard never adequately explained...

    Well, I can tell you what I do know about all that.

    First, the South Park episode, while very funny, wasn't all that accurate or thorough. Most of the high points were OK, but saying that "this is what Scientologists believe" was incorrect. Most Scientologists don't know these things because very few actually made it to OT III. I don't remember if South Park called Incident 2 Scientology's "creation myth", but others say that. That's incorrect.

    Of course, some of the most absurd things actually are true, like space ships that looked like DC8 passenger jets...

    OK, I don't recall anything about Incident 2 being related to the emergence of the human race. If Hubbard claimed that, I didn't see/hear it.

    Hubbard often referred to Earth as a "prison planet". So that's a true quote.

    The whole thing about clusters is simply that clusters had to be "handled" differently than individual BTs (you had to spot why they'd formed a cluster). There isn't anything else particularly significant about clusters.

    There's a good reason why you might be confused about OT III, it really doesn't make much sense. If you read about it and can't make sense out of it -- that's a sane reaction to the whole thing.

    Thanks for the latest info from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Good news!

    ReplyDelete
  41. I have a comment. I have been searching for a comparison that explains how intelligent and talented people like Greta Van Susteren and opera star Julia Migenes become Scientologists.

    I think an apt comparison are the communist totalitarian societies of Eastern Europe. Many intelligent and talented people led by idealism became thoroughly indoctrinated communists.

    This comparison avoids arguments about Godwin's Law and brainwashing. The analogy is also useful for explaining cult front groups.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thanks for the reply, Bill, after I have finished this cycle I'll ask the guys at the implant station, maybe they can bring me up to speed. :)

    Another interesting fact: Sabine Weber, the boss of Scientology in Germany, has openly admitted that things are not going as planned. Isn't it out-ethics to say anything but "explosive growth"?

    Have a nice weekend

    German Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  43. Just Bill, the fur is flying on the message boards of newspapers, etc. over the court ruling about "ministerial exception" in the Headley case. I hadn't known about this exception crap, but I'd suspected our laws gave many and various unwarranted protections to religions, besides the tax one we all know about.

    How do you think this will play out? Is it bad or good for the old CoS?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Re: Headley case

    I'll admit I am disappointed, but not surprised. Hubbard knew what he was doing when he worked so hard to get religious recognition in the U.S. It is very valuable because of the "blind eye" that courts turn toward religions.

    And, of course, Scientology is not the only "religion" to see this and take advantage of it.

    But, as disappointing as this is, everyone should keep in mind that this doesn't change the ultimate outcome of what is going on.

    The Church of Scientology has been destroyed. The truths about Scientology, its lies, its abuses, its fraud, its lack of results, are out there. No court case can change that.

    Scientology's lawyers can win all sorts of cases in court but the church has lost the war already.

    People are avoiding the church, very few new people are being brought in.

    Scientologists are leaving.

    Churches are closing.

    It is important to understand, that nothing is better for Scientology because of this -- they avoided a major loss -- but their collapse continues unabated.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Sorry if you've covered this before, but is Religious Freedom Watch a Scientology front? Just looked up Hana Whitfield on there and the 'grande guignol' story about her made me suspicious.

    Also, do you know of Scientology-Cult website? It is sorta funny but sorta tragic that these "free Scientologists" lure people to their site with the word 'cult.' Gee, once a Scientologist, hard to stop lying, huh? Of course, lying for a higher purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Re: Religious Freedom Watch

    Oh, yes. RFW is major Church of Scientology front group. You will notice they only find fault with people who expose the abuses, lies, crimes and fraud of the church. Apparently, everyone else is just fine -- major bigots are just fine -- as long as they don't expose Church of Scientology crimes, lies, abuses and fraud.

    Major hypocritical site.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Re: Scientology cult website

    I don't think this is an attempt to lure people in. Quite a few Scios simply can;t confront the fact that they have given most of their time and most (all) of their money to a cult, so they insist that Scientology was perfect and ethical and altruistic etc. until Miscavige turned it into a cult. It's convenient and sooo calming...
    And they're not the only ones (see "Friends of LRH") Every Freezoner and "Independent Scientologist" has thi mindset that the most ethical orgnisation has been turned into a cult. They're like the communism apologists who insist that communism is great, it was only perverted by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. Sad and pathetic, but quite understandable.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Re: Scientology-cult website, Friends of LRH, etc.

    Scientologists, like all believers, always want to "spread the good news" by luring in new adherents. But I think you are mostly correct, these websites are mainly for true believers, to keep the dream alive.

    As I said in my recent post, Scientologists are involved in this massive, important, trillion-year battle against Ultimate Evil. Many who leave the church cannot give up this glorious battle, nor can they admit that, for the most part, Scientology does not deliver on its promises. And so they keep it going as "Independents" or "Freezoners".

    It's hard for them.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Gotta disagree on the subject of motivation, as usual. (Here's a fun quote I just found, "Why be difficult? With some extra effort you can be impossible!")

    The top layer of the true believers' clinging is no doubt, as you say, that it is hard to give up belonging to the only 'right' group on Planet Earth. For many, though, the layer that matters--the one that really sticks them to LRH's obvious and proven b.s.-- is the one where the believer is more intelligent, more spiritual, and in general better than you and me.

    If they could give up their superiority, they'd have no trouble giving up their 'ideals.'

    ReplyDelete
  50. I'd like to ask a question. I've been watching a lot of XenuTv lately and have become curious as how to respond to the questions proposed by "handlers". More precisely, how do you respond to the question: "What are you crimes?" Is there any response that you can think to give? Is the question designed to be a no-response kind of thing that simply redirects attention off of the true target?

    ReplyDelete
  51. @Jeff G

    There is no value in any response to Scientology "handler" questions. The questions aren't asked for you to answer, the questions are asked to "cave you in". You are supposed to start thinking of all your evil deeds, feel terrible about how you (such an evil person) are attacking Scientology (such a good group) -- and go away to die.

    Hubbard told Scientologists that these questions were the correct way to handle critics, and so they will always "handle" critics that way.

    Scientologists don't notice that the technique doesn't actually do anything Hubbard says it does. People just laugh at the non-sequitur and continue protesting.

    Respond? No, Scientologists do not want any communication, they just want control.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Why are Scientologists so against psych drugs? They seem to use alot of generalities when it comes to that area.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Re: Psych drugs

    Simply: Hubbard said psychiatrists and everything they do are EVIL, so Scientologists obediently, and without thought, forward that agenda.

    Since they have no facts to back up this position (Hubbard was very sparing with any facts) they must fall back on vague accusations, unsubstantiated claims and generalities.

    Because, you see, Hubbard is "always right" and may never be questioned.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Moar Xenu!

    I thought I had responded to your question of a month ago, but apparently I didn't. I apologise.

    Re: Confidentiality of auditing

    Scientology alleges that all auditing folders are confidential and will never be divulged under any circumstances. This policy is followed, but only as long at the Scientologist toes the line.

    Therefore, Aaron Saxton's comment makes sense. If the Scientologist is in good standing, the only way to make his confessions available is to get him to repeat them out of session.

    However, the minute the Scientologist steps out of line and refuses to immediately recant and return to the party line, their auditing folders become (per Hubbard's orders) fodder for blackmail and fair game actions.

    So, as long as the Scientologist remains a True Believer -- or, at least, pretends to be a True Believer -- their auditing confessions will, usually, remain confidential.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hi Bill!

    Thanks for the response. Amy Scobee put it well:

    "If my folders are confidential why is Tommy Davis talking about my sex life?"

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hi there :)

    I actually have a few questions to ask, if you get a chance. I have an assignment coming up where we have to research the perspective of a different religion regarding our own chosen 'ulitmate question'. So I've decided to look deeper into Scientology and your perspective of why there is a universe.
    So my questions are,
    1. What was there before the universe was created?
    2. Who created the universe?
    3. Does your religion take any scientific ideas regarding the creation of the universe?
    4. Why is there anything rather than nothing?
    5. Do you believe there are other life forms in the universe?
    6. Do you believe that the universe has an end?

    I'm sorry if they seem broad, but any answers you are able to give me will help.
    Thanks :)

    ReplyDelete
  57. Re: School assignment questions

    These answers are based on L. Ron Hubbard's lectures to the best of my recollection. The fact that Hubbard changed his stories a bit from time to time makes it hard to be specific. This information is mainly from the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures and other lectures from that time period.

    1. What was there before the universe was created?

    According to Hubbard, there is "another universe" outside this one which operates under different rules than this one. What those rules are Hubbard never said. All our souls, which Hubbard named "thetans" existed in that universe.

    In one lecture, Hubbard said he knew of at least nine other universes outside this one, nested inside each other, like a Chinese doll.

    2. Who created the universe?

    Hubbard says that each thetan created his own private universe with unique characteristics. A thetan might invite other thetans to "come and visit" their universe, which simply meant agreeing with all the parts of the universe, at which point the second thetan would "be inside" the other's universe.

    At one point, about 4 trillion years ago, some evil thetan or thetans created this universe and started tricking and/or forcing all the other thetans into it - as a trap. This universe, then, has some parts from billions (trillions?) of individual universes all collapsed into this one.

    This universe is, according to Hubbard, a trap and the actual, ultimate goal of Scientology is to free everyone from this universe - and to destroy this universe.

    By the way, this would be accurately described as "Scientology's Creation Myth".

    3. Does your religion take any scientific ideas regarding the creation of the universe?

    Um, no. There is no scientific basis for anything in Scientology, despite its name.

    4. Why is there anything rather than nothing?

    Thetans must have a game. If there is nothing there, thetans will create something in order to have a game. Having a game is one of the most important characteristics of a thetan.

    5. Do you believe there are other life forms in the universe?

    Scientologists definitely think there are other life forms in the universe. There are many other civilizations and types of people in this universe. We are, they believe, part of the Marcabian Confederacy. In other parts of the universe, there are "Cat People", "Snake People", and other types of beings and civilizations by the millions. All beings in the universe, it should be noted, are thetans.

    6. Do you believe that the universe has an end?

    According to Hubbard, if we don't "get out of this trap" we all will eventually and inevitably degenerate until we think we are rocks - forever.

    If we do get out of this universe, then when the last thetan stops believing in this universe, it will cease to exist.

    I hope this helps. Good luck with your assignment.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Hello Bill,

    it seems that the clock is ticking for Micavige. What happens when he 'blows' and sets up shop in a country that doesn't extradite? (unfortunately I don't see him getting arrested and thrown into prison). The money will be gone, but there are still properties worth hundreds of millions scattered all over the world.

    Will there be a power struggle between ex-Scientologists demanding reimbursement and independent Scientologists anxious to relaunch the cult? Do you think Rathbun and Rinder are planning to take over as many oin ESMB predict?

    And will the media finally use those days of confusion to publish the really nasty stuff, which would deliver a fatal blow to the cult? Could this result in Scientology (or what's left of it) having its tax exemption revoked?

    It would be nice to get your opinion on this scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Hi Bill,

    I've been monitoring the decline of Scientology for quite some time now, and it's kind of fascinating, a rather morbid fascination, though.
    Besides your blog (which is terrific)I've been reading two others, those by Jeff Hawkins and Marty Rathbun.

    They're so different! At Jeff's blog there's a lively discussion, views are being challenged, people are nudged into seeing things from a different viewpoint, while things are very different at Marty's blog. Apparently he only attracts sycophants, and when somebody posts something that doesn't fit the general mindset, posters gang up and rant and rave like a bunch of maniacs. It's utterly dismaying: Don't they see what's happening? They've "escaped the evil environment" created by Miscavige, they think they've freed themselves, but when somebody feels free to disagree, they act just like brainwashed Miscavige sock puppets! Do they really think they can turn the CoS into a benign and helpful institution? The mind boggles!Aaaaargh!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Re: Clock ticking for Miscavige

    I agree with your assessment of David Miscavige. He's a classic coward (besides being a sociopath) and he will run-run-run away. When the going gets tough, Miscavige gives up.

    The finances of the Church of Scientology are totally and completely in Miscavige's hands. When he gives up and runs, his agents can sell all the property and put the funds wherever he wants. He will gut the corporation and there won't be any property to fight over.

    As for Rathbun and Rinder, of course they want to resurrect the Church of Scientology under their guidance. That's what they've been working on. That's why Miscavige attacks them more than anyone else -- they are direct competitors.

    But, really, who cares? Whether the original Church of Scientology continues or is resurrected by the M.R.s, it doesn't matter.

    The only difference between the 1980s boom and the 2000s bust is that now everybody knows that Scientology doesn't deliver on its "miraculous" claims. None of them.

    No matter who runs the joint, their lies about "solutions" have been exposed for what they are: Total fabrications. The operation is finished as of now.

    The only people who would (and do) keep the church going are those True Believers who can't confront the truth. New people won't join and attrition as True Believers wake up will continue.

    Yes, I think, when Miscavige runs and guts the corporation, there will be a feeding frenzy of stories about all the lies, fraud, crimes and abuses.

    And Miscavige, from wherever he runs to, will still claim to be the true leader of Scientology and the only source of its technology. And some will continue to believe him.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Re: Rathbun's blog

    You are right, but they can't help it at all. Shutting your mind to all debate and disagreement is core to Scientology's belief system.

    Intelligent people know that growth, knowledge and improvement comes from disagreement, debate and open discussion.

    Intelligent people welcome disagreement because that's what fuels the forward progress of all knowledge.

    True Believers (of whatever persuasion) must reject everything except full and ardent agreement.

    Scientologists have no choice in the matter and they know it. Their faith hangs by a thread and this absolutely terrifies them. Scientology cannot tolerate any questions, any debate, any disagreement or, especially, any requirement of proof.

    So, yes, they are horrible to those who disagree -- they have to be. Their faith requires it.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Thanks for the reply, Bill. So they'd have to watch as all those perfect ideal orgs are sold under their noses...that should wake up a few people.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Yeah, but then it would be a bit late, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  64. What OT level brings control of MEST?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Re: What OT level brings control of MEST?

    Reality? Or myth?

    Back in the 1950s, Hubbard claimed that this kind of power was just around the corner. Processes he developed at that time were supposed to unleash that kind of ability.

    Obviously that didn't happen. In the 60s, he released the early versions of the OT levels and kept changing them through the 70s and 80s. By then, he was no longer promising cause over MEST for those levels. But the early Grade Charts listing the OT levels put "Cause over matter, energy, space and time" at "OT VIII" which was not available at that time.

    When OT VIII finally was released, that description/promise was removed. And, certainly, no OT VIII is demonstrating that kind of power.

    Now, "Cause over MEST" no longer appears as a promised ability anywhere on the Grade Chart.

    So, basically, reality and myth agree: Cause over MEST is not a result promised nor an ability gained on any OT level.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Re: School assignment questions

    Now that the assignment questions have been answered can you do a follow up with these? (I am not the original poster)

    What are the biggest evils of ScN?
    Who are the biggest evils of ScN?
    Where are these evils being perpetuated?
    How are these evils being perpetuated?
    Why are these evils being perpetuated?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Thanks, Just Bill, for your synopsis of Scientology beliefs about the Universe and Everything. I had thought I understood the core beliefs and now I know I do. On my blog and elsewhere I plan to study/debate why people find these types of beliefs so attractive. I remember clearly that two things exhilerated me a lot when I got into Scientology--having people confirm that we are all 'thetans,' i.e. immortal, non-physical beings and the idea that our universe is "insane." What I feel is that people all know 1) things are messed up and not how they might be and 2) there is something about consciousness that intimates more than physical survival at the heart of human endeavor.

    I'm not stating that we ARE immortal or that the world can be perfected or even vastly improved; I no long cling to those beliefs or know of any valid reasons to do so.

    But I find it interesting that these were the ideas that drew me into Scientology DESPITE my knowledge of abuses toward journalists and poor results within my own family. Fascinating.

    Thanks as always for providing clarity where the CoS prefers obscurity!

    ReplyDelete
  68. Hi Just Bill, i tried to ask this question last week, but maybe I didn't post correctly.

    What does it mean when Scientologists talk about wearing hats? I always get confused when I see this referenced.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @Vera Keil

    Thanks for your comments and nice words. I'm glad I've been able to provide some insight.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Re: Wearing hats

    This is not a Scientology term, but they do use it excessively.

    Hat: an informal term for a person's role; "he took off his politician's hat and talked frankly".

    In some occupations, the hat worn at work signifies one's job. This was more true years ago, but is still true today. For instance, sometimes the color of hard hat signifies different roles at a construction site.

    In Scientology, it means a person's assigned job or duties.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Miscavige was born into Scientology, at a young age he must have been a true believer. Do you think he still believes in the "workability" of the tech, or is he fully aware that he exploits victims who are trapped in a vicious mindfuck?
    Hitler believed in his mission and the final victory, what about the tiny tyrant?

    BTW: You should post moar! It's a nuisance waiting for a new blog post. :)

    ReplyDelete
  72. Re: Miscavige a true believer

    No, I don't think David Miscavige believes in Scientology at all. He doesn't audit any one - he hasn't audited anyone for decades. A true believer would audit others. He doesn't receive auditing or audit himself - and hasn't for decades. Any time he gets involved in the tech, he just uses it to screw people up.

    You see, of all the people in the whole world, Miscavige has all the information about how Scientology does not actually produce anything it claims to.

    Every action he takes has only one goal, to make more money. I think that says it all.

    Re: Posting more.

    Actually, I'd love to post more, but that isn't always easy.

    Many times, when I get all excited about some aspect of Scientology, I check and find I already posted about that. I hate repeating myself.

    And then there are so many fine writers out there covering Scientology now, I find I don't have to correct or clarify as much as I used to.

    I don't want to just babble on if I don't have anything valuable to say. So ... I do post less. Sorry for the waits, but I try to make the articles worth waiting for.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Thanks for the quick reply...and for confirming what I assumed.

    Re: Posting moar!
    I guess I'll have to use INTENTION! to spur you into action. Let's see how workable that technology really is. I've been practicing with Mr. Ashtry, you know...

    ReplyDelete
  74. What is an OTVII+ supposed to be able to do? Shouldn't they be at a higher level than management to tell them that Sec checking is no needed? Is all management OT? What's more powerfull; OT or management?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Re: Upper OTs are supposed to be able to do...

    Short answer: Nothing. While "OTs" are promised "cause over life, form, thought, matter, energy, space and time" there are no OT powers or abilities specifically promised for any OT level.

    Given that no current OT in all of Scientology has proven to have any "OT powers", this isn't surprising.

    Apparently, realOT powers will happen "some other time, some other place."

    David Miscavige, an alleged OT V, has all the power as leader of the church. No other OT has any power, even the OT VIIIs. Most of the Church of Scientology's executive structure is not OT -- especially when it comes to that "cause" thing. Anyone in management is cowed and lives in constant fear of Miscavige.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Hi,

    1. Where is Love on the Tone scale?

    2. Does Scientology teach how to get above Tone 4?

    3. Any correlation between OT levels and Tone levels?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Re: Tones

    1. Love is not on Hubbard's Tone Scale. I believe it is because the feeling of love can occur at different tones, but I don't recall Hubbard specifically addressing that.

    2. Well, "obviously", getting Scientology auditing will get one to the upper Tone Levels. Actually, that's just about it as far as any "how to".

    3. No. Although, as one attains higher levels, one is supposed to spend more time at the upper tone levels. But, you see, the Tone Levels are, in Scientology, supposed to be "tools" for getting the job done -- one assumes the "appropriate" tone level for the task.

    If that sounds rather artificial ... it is.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Just Bill, your answer about love reminded me of some stuff Hubbard wrote about admiration--wasn't love just a combination of affinity and admiration? Something like that? It's funny to me now that he wrote so much about admiration, since of course to a narcissistic sociopath, admiration would seem to be the best it gets. To those of us who have experienced giving and receiving love, we know that sometimes love has nothing to do with admiration!

    ReplyDelete
  79. Re: Love

    Right. For some reason, Hubbard just didn't like "love" at all. He only spoke of it as either a combination of other things - which were OK, or as something aberrated.

    Many Scientologists have given up using "love" and use "high ARC" instead. Ew.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Does scientology have animal training tech?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Many ex-Scios who reject Scientology completely still defend the "purification rundown" because they had "many wins" while doing it. I think the whole procedure is based on astoundingly bogus premises and dangerous enough to have it outlawed.
    What's your opinion? And if you agree with me: How is it possible that in a country where bureaucratic laws and regulations control and monitor everything, especially medical procedures, Scientology and its front groups can advertise for and administer tis dangerous sham in open daylight AND charge shitloads of money for it? If a hospital or regular rehab center would offer a procedure that has been lambasted by experts for being fraudulent and bogus "science" which can be hazardous for the health of the patients, some government task force would crack down on them with a vengeance. So what's going on here? They can't just fall for the "it's a spiritual procedure" crap, right? Right?
    Sorry for the long post / rant.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Re: Purification Rundown

    I've done the Purification Rundown. Actually, I've done it several times. Most Scientologists have done it multiple times.

    But I'd have to agree with you, it is based on some unproven, and dangerous, ideas.

    Unfortunately, the regulatory agencies are quite constrained by the "it's a spiritual procedure by a church" line. In other religions there are "sweat lodges", "self-flagellation", fasting and other dangerous activities. Where do you draw the line?

    It may not seem right, but people do have the right to voluntarily participate in a certain amount of dangerous activities.

    Where regulatory agencies can, and should, interfere is when the church tries to sell the Purification Rundown outside of the religious umbrella -- when it is part of Narconon, Criminon, New York Detox Center and the like. In these areas I, too, would like to see some serious scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Purif. What a scam. I figured out that what gave me my 'high' doing it was the magnesium in the drink we had to take (turns out I need magnesium supplements all the time), the vitamins (I had never been self-caring enough to take them before) and the heat. My body loves heat.

    I was in the sauna with some poor guy who was sweating like crazy (unlike me) and getting dizzy. I told him to get out and not worry about the 'rules.' After that they made me sauna by myself.

    I figured out that they'd accept any positve origination as the 'endpoint' or whatever the h- it is called. So when I got tired of sauna-ing I just told them I felt great. Which I did.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Why are Scientologists accused of "being reasonable"? And, related to this question, why are human emotions and reactions (HE&R) a bad thing? Is it a relapse into the wog existence?
    Thanks
    P.S. (My first two attempts apparently didn't get through, if you did receive them pls delete them)

    ReplyDelete
  85. Re: Being "reasonable"

    When a Scientologist is "reasonable" it means they allow others to do what they want rather than what the Scientologist knows is best for them.

    As I said in Scientology and Control, it really is all about control. True Scientologists are supposed to be in total control at all times, getting everyone to do things the "right" (meaning Scientology) way.

    And this answers your second question as well. Human emotion and reaction is "bad" because it means you are "at effect" rather than at cause.

    With Scientology training, a person no longer has any HE&R and is no longer "reasonable". They are always "at cause".

    At least, that's the theory.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Re: Reasonable.

    Thanks for the quick reply. It does make sense-in a very twisted way. It must be terrible to be caught in a sytem that frantically tries to keep you trapped in a mindset that you were forced to adopt. It makes me angry that they claim to deliver total freedom.

    Since we're dealing with these mental traps, I felt just as repulsed when I read how Hubbard twisted the meaning of certain terms he clearly regarded as dangerous - like "critical thought" and "individuation". Have you ever written about this topic? In my opinion this is as insidious as it gets.

    Hail Nick Xenophone.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Re: Reasonable

    Thanks for your input. Hubbard's insidious shift in the meaning of key words is quite important. It has been written about, but I haven't tackled it myself. There is a lot there.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Are there wealthy Sea Org members? Does somebody like Tommy Davis get to keep his wealth and live the high life? Is he expected to bunk with the rest of the Sea Orgers and give all his assets to the Church?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Is there a specific definition for what constitutes a Scientology "win"?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Re: Wealthy Sea Org members

    I don't think there are any wealthy Sea Org members, nor wealthy regular staff members. First, if any Scientologist has any money, they are supposed to give it to the church. Second, no person who had a choice would tolerate the living conditions, working hours, abuse and food that Sea Org members must put up with.

    I don't specifically know about Tommy Davis, but I sincerely doubt he gets much in the way of perks or special considerations. Everyone suffers -- except David Miscavige.

    Outside of the Sea Org, wealthy Scientologists are treated with kid gloves at all times. They are keeping Miscavige living the life of a billionaire.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Re: Scientology "wins"

    There is definitely no specific definition for a Scientology "win". This is on purpose and is important.

    Because there is no definition, any good thing that happens to a Scientologist is automatically attributed to Scientology.

    In fact, any significant good thing that happens anywhere in the world is attributed to Scientology by the church.

    This is the main way that Scientologists convince themselves that "Scientology works!"

    ReplyDelete
  92. Re: Evils of Scientology - Re: School assignment questions

    I did get your questions and considered them for a long time. I can't answer them because there is way too much to be said on the subject of the evils of Scientology. There are many web sites and blogs dedicated to that exact subject.

    ReplyDelete
  93. From a promo e-mail: ...learn to successfully disagree with the physical universe...
    sounds funny and interesting, but what does it mean?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Re: "successfully disagree with the physical universe"

    In Scientologese this means "do what you want, even if it violates the laws of the physical universe."

    For example: Fly. Predict the future. All the paranormal phenomena.

    Scientology can get away with promising these kinds of things -- which they have never delivered -- because "they are a religion" and they are "speaking metaphorically about spiritual enlightenment".

    ReplyDelete
  95. Dear Bill:
    Travolta success story:
    n January of 1975 I was working on my first film in Durango, Mexico. There I met an actress who gave me the book Dianetics. During the five weeks we were filming she gave me some auditing sessions and applied some basic principles. That was when I became involved in Dianetics – because it worked.
    When I returned to the United States I began Scientology training and auditing. My career immediately took off and I landed a leading role on the TV show “Welcome Back Kotter” and had a string of successful films. I have been a successful actor for more than twenty years and Scientology has played a major role in that success.
    I have a wonderful child and a great marriage because I apply L. Ron Hubbard’s technology to this area of my life.
    As a Scientologist, I have the technology to handle life’s problems and I have used this to help others in life as well.
    I would say that Scientology put me into the big time.
    John Travolta
    Where is the wunderful child?? Dianetics did not help??

    ReplyDelete
  96. Re: Travolta's "success story"

    I'd rather not get into this sad subject. There is nothing worse than a parent losing a child. My heart goes out to John and Kelly.

    Yes, it can be speculated that John's belief in, and adherence to, Scientology prevented Jett from getting treatment that could have prevented this tragedy. If so, that is something they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

    They really don't need anyone to remind them. That's just cruel.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Re: Lawyers willing to tackle the church

    I'm sorry I really don't have any more information than you probably already have. There are a couple of well-known lawyers who are going toe-to-toe with the Church of Scientology.

    But you don't necessarily need that. I'd use my friendly, local lawyer for what you need. All you need is an official, legal letter from a lawyer, stating that you have full and complete documentation and the Church of Scientology is legally obligated to repay you the monies owed -- and, if they don't, the matter would be escalated appropriately.

    There is little chance they would ignore such a letter, because, in truth, they would lose and lose quickly if it went to court, and that would result in bad PR and a ton of new claims as ex-Scientologists realized they could win that battle.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Lawyers Willing to Tackle the Church. Thanks for your quick reply and advice. We will follow it and let you know the outcome. Thanks for being there.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Re: More on lawyers and refunds

    It is important to understand the difference between asking for a refund (unused monies on account) and other legal matters involving the church.

    If one is asking for repayment (meaning money back for services received or for the return of fund-raising donations) you would run into a difficult legal battle. Likewise, cases like the Headley case are big deals.

    But refunds? That's entirely different. There is no battle. The Church of Scientology has no case for denying refunds. Such a denial is plain illegal as well as a violation of the church's IRS agreement.

    In my opinion, any judge, on hearing the facts, would grant summary judgment against the church immediately. Maybe with penalties.

    This doesn't take some high-powered, expensive lawyer. This is a slam-dunk case.

    (This is my opinion only, I am not a lawyer, consult a lawyer, etc., etc.)

    ReplyDelete
  100. Thank you, Bill. Reference lawyers and refunds, we are in the process of selecting a local attorney. In our case we are seeking refunds for services paid for but not used. We appreciate your clarification of refunds versus repayments. Will keep you posted. The Old Geezer.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Dear Bill:
    Is it possible the IAS became a money laundering scheme?
    Look for info about two "wealthy" Mexicans: Marcos Salame Jaffif and David Agami Jaffif. Both are great donors for the cause, but the funds come from dirty money.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Re: IAS - money laundering

    Not as "money laundering" is defined, no. The money to the IAS goes into Miscavige's control and it doesn't come back out, except for his personal projects. So no one can technically launder money through the IAS.

    I will say that there is absolutely no accounting for IAS funds, where they go, who gets it -- but my answer is based on knowing Miscavige. He doesn't pay money out. He only pays for things that personally benefit himself, his image or Tom Cruise.

    Do you have any evidence that the money is "dirty"? I don't want to spread any false rumors about people.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Writing on Marty Rathbun's blog, Mike Rinder mentioned that Tommy Davis "blew" in the midst of some PR flap. Rathbun himself talks about how he blew years ago and was brought back; it sounds as if many top sea orgers "blow" at one time or another. What is your sense of the proportion of sea org members who have decided to quit at some point or another and been reeled back in? How is this phenomenon (so-and-so blew, now he's back) explained to the other sea org members?

    ReplyDelete
  104. In the Sea Org, people disappear without explanation all the time. They blew, they were sent to the RPF, they were "offloaded" to some other org, they were kicked out. No one tells anyone why a person is gone, and no one dares ask. If the Sea Org member shows up again, then everything must be OK.

    They don't ask what happened. So, no explanation is needed.

    ReplyDelete
  105. In one of those ex-Scio write ups one woman, after lengthy and "bugged" processing, said she was told she must have gone clear in a former life. How is this possible?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Re: "Past life Clear"

    If a person "went Clear" in the 1960s, 70s, 80s and then died, they would be 20-50 in this life.

    If you believe in Clear and if you believe in past lives, then this is obviously going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Re: Past life Clear.

    Thanks for the quick reply. I assume if you don't go clear in your last life you have to start from scratch, because only the state of clear grants total recall? And is it really true that Scientologists tell a dying person to come back and get into Scientology? I've read that as well.

    BTW, your new post is great as usual. I think this topic is so rich that an entire book could be written just about paranoia in Scientology.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Re: Past life Clear

    Heck, in the current church, even if you "went Clear" in this life you still have to start from scratch.

    However, to answer your question, according to Hubbard, the State of Clear is permanent, but any level below that will eventually relapse, so, yes, according to that, if a person didn't go Clear last life, they would have to start over.

    The trouble with all that is that they have no real way to tell if a person is/was Clear. There is no test to actually verify the existence or absence of a "Reactive Mind" -- hence the ease in which Miscavige tells people they "aren't Clear", even after they were declared so. No one really can tell if a person is Clear or not.

    As for your second question, I'm sure Scientologists would tell a dying person to come back and get into Scientology, but there are no official instructions from Hubbard to do so.

    (Thanks for your comment about my recent post. There is a lot there. Hubbard's paranoia really defines much of Scientology.)

    ReplyDelete
  109. In the Eighties we had a weird experience in Mexico. The new CO LATAM Bernie o`Connel was not sent from CoS!! The destruction caused by her for off policy procedures had no effect until she was fired, about two years from her command!!

    ReplyDelete
  110. Just Bill, what's up with Sharon Angle? If she is elected (gods forbid), will that help or hurt the CoS? She seems like a nut.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Re: Sharon Angle

    I think that, if she were elected, it wouldn't help the Church of Scientology.

    Sharon Angle experienced what happens to people who become dupes of the church, she saw what happens when you fall for the church PR and neglect to investigate for yourself. I doubt she'd forget that lesson.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Do not underestimate the Stupid Party, of which I am a member. No one does any independent critical research. It is happening now with the Shariah Wars.

    The cult wants three things as far as I can tell: legitimization, pressure on Germany and Europe re religious freedom, and promotion of its anti-psych "reform" agenda.

    Angle is small fry. My real concern is Sarah Palin. Scilon Greta Van Susteren and her scilon celebrity lawyer husband John Coale have been paling around with her for two years.

    Coale set up Sarah Pac and is running it from behind the scenes. DM, I am sure, monitors this closely.

    ReplyDelete
  113. @Athanasius

    OK, it is true that the Church of Scientology does the "get close to an authority figure and control their data until they are fully under church control" thing rather well -- and that is scary.

    But look what happened to Tom Cruise. Yes, he was completely under David Miscavige's thought control and believed everything the church said. Maybe he still does -- but it destroyed him.

    Because people outside of Scientology, who aren't under the Church of Scientology's thought control see the truth. They see people like Tom Cruise as the puppets they are, people who can no longer think. People who can no longer be trusted.

    And that is what will happen to these politicians who become controlled by the Church of Scientology. They might think they are "fighting for good", but everyone else will see them as puppets of a corrupt cult. And they will fail, just as everything else the church touches fails.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Hello Bill. I have some questions about celebrities and Scientology.

    I frequently read on the Internet that celebrities who become Scientologists are treated lavishly and that they get the ‘lite’ version of Scientology. Does that mean these celebs undergo less thought-control and hypnosis auditing than the average Scientologist?

    Secondly, when a celeb Scientologist starts taking courses on the “Bride to Total Freedom,” are they expected to go all the way to OT VIII? Or could a loyal celeb Scientologist end their training (for whatever reason) at a lower level and still be in the good graces of CoS?

    ReplyDelete
  115. @The good old dog

    Re: Celebrities

    The Church of Scientology treats celebrities, wealthy people and politicians with very great care. They are never subjected to the threats, abuse and pressure of regular, powerless Scientologists. They get special auditors, special "reges" (salespeople), special ethics. Often, it all takes place at their convenience in their home.

    But they do receive the exact same thought control indoctrination. In fact, it may be more carefully done on them than anyone else. Such important people are carefully indoctrinated into how "good" the church is, how it "really is, really, truly" opposed by Great Evil.

    If at all possible, very loyal Scientologists are inserted into their staff as "handlers" holding key assistant posts and carefully filtering their information -- you've seen this done with Tom Cruise and Sarah Palin.

    Such people are never forced to continue training and courses, but the church considers it extremely important that they keep getting regular doses of Scientology auditing and training to keep them under complete control.

    Any wavering from the party line on their part is considered a huge emergency, requiring immediate and continual handling until they are back under control.

    But, always, they are handled without the usual threats, abuse or pressure -- so, you could say, they are always in the "good graces" of the church.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Thanks for the detailed response Bill. Extremely interesting stuff. If it is permitted, I would like to ask a follow-up question, relating to what I asked before.

    Does the CoS ease up on the thought control, indoctrination and handlers if the celebrity gradually loses popularity and importance over the years? Or does the CoS continue to “train” and “advise” that celeb for the rest of his/her life regardless?

    ReplyDelete
  117. @The good old dog

    If someone who was an authority figure loses popularity or influence, they won't get quite the same treatment anymore.

    There probably would no longer be a "personal assistant" assigned to control their environment, but they wouldn't be forgotten. Celebrities always retain some influence, and so the church will always try to keep them under their control.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Thanks again Bill. May I ask one FINAL follow-up question on this subject? I promise it is my last one.

    I asked:

    **when a celeb Scientologist starts taking courses on the “Bride to Total Freedom,” are they expected to go all the way to OT VIII? Or could a loyal celeb Scientologist end their training (for whatever reason) at a lower level and still be in the good graces of CoS?**

    You responded:

    **Such people (celebrities) are never forced to continue training and courses, but the church considers it extremely important that they keep getting regular doses of Scientology auditing and training to keep them under complete control.**

    I am definitely an amateur on this subject, so pardon me if this question seems fuzzy. Is it possible for a celeb Scientologist to receive auditing and training and yet NOT be on the “Bridge to Total Freedom" and its various levels?

    ReplyDelete
  119. @The good old dog

    According to Hubbard and the Church of Scientology, anyone and everyone who has any contact with Scientology is, by their definition, "on the Bridge".

    So, no, anyone receiving any auditing or training, in any amount is "on the Bridge".

    ReplyDelete
  120. Re: the good old dog
    I was never on staff but from the bits I observed over the years, I surmise that a 'special person' might be allowed to have a looser relationship to the Bridge (i.e. get auditing but not be regged in quite the same rigid way to keep going on some schedule). Would that be fair to say, Just Bill or am I off base? For example, I imagine that for someone like Michael Jackson, the Bridge might be twisted into something not so linear and more like a pretzal if that would keep him from bailing!

    ReplyDelete
  121. For those that the Church of Scientology considers "important", the requirements and rules can become quite flexible.

    And, yes, for those people, the church will do pretty much whatever it takes to keep them "in the fold".

    ReplyDelete
  122. Hello, Bill. Several years ago I read this article which was the start of my breaking with the Church of $. It is a great article entitled Characteristics Associated With Cultic Groups by Janna Lalich, Ph.D and Michael D. Langone, Ph.D. It is posted on the International Cultic Studies Assn. web site. All 15 of the characteristics associated with any cult apply to Scientology. You might want to read it and if you feel it is appropriate cut and paste it into the blog. Link is http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_checklis.htm
    On another subject we have engaged a local attorney as per your suggestion and shortly faxes and letters will go out to the Church demanding monies back for unused services. Will keep you posted on this. I thank you for being there; you are more of an effective force than you probably realize. The Old Geezer.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Bill, the exchange between yourself and 'The Good Old Dog' regarding big name celebrities and how they are treated by the Church of Scientology (as opposed to ordinary Scientologists) got me to thinking about another class of people: minor Scientology celebrities.

    I would describe these are people who have achieved success in their particular fields (acting, music, athletics...etc.) but are not universal, household names. Their fan base is smaller. Does the Church of Scientology indoctrinate, program and monitor these people as strictly as they do their "A" level stars (Travolta, Cruise, Nancy Cartwright, Kirstie Alley..etc.)?

    ReplyDelete
  124. @Joe

    People may not know, but "Celebrity Centres" have a rather loose definition of "celebrity". Basically, anyone is a "celebrity" who wants to take services at a CC. After all, we're talking about "stats" here, so all the rules get bent to "get the stats up".

    And this relates to your question in this way, since anyone can be a "celebrity" at a CC, then no one is a celebrity -- and they all get treated like your regular, no-power Scientologists.

    The only exceptions are, of course, those with money, influence and/or power. The rich, the famous and anyone in power are treated very specially, as I described. Everyone else gets the pressure, the threats and the abuse.

    And everyone gets the thought-control indoctrination.

    ReplyDelete
  125. is it true you will not "graduate" the simple courses and attend a graduation ceremony until you have signed up for another class?

    ReplyDelete
  126. Re: Will not graduate if you don't buy more

    That is essentially correct.

    On the routing form for any course, before completing you are required to go to the Registrar and, if you don't sign up and pay for your next course, you will be sent for "correction".

    However, it is possible to "graduate" and get out of there without signing up and paying for "your next service". It just takes a strong will and persistence in saying "no thanks".

    ReplyDelete
  127. hey bill. perhaps you have addressed this elsewhere on your site, but i was just watchin the old boob tube and lo and behold there came an advertisement for, of all things, excedrin headache medicine, starring, of all people, actress elisabeh moss (of mad men fame) who is of course known to be a scientologist. my question, i guess, is...well...whiskey tango foxtrot? i thought such things were frowned upon, no?

    ReplyDelete
  128. Re: Excedrin and Elisabeth Moss

    Yes, and no.

    The Church of Scientology has been fanatically against psychiatric drugs, no matter what. They also frown upon other drugs and the taking of most drugs while a person is on course or getting auditing is forbidden.

    But if a Scientologist is not currently on course or auditing, mild use of over the counter pain killers, and doctor prescribed (non-psych) drugs have, in the past, been tolerated.

    Technically, the only restrictions by Hubbard were as above.

    However, under Miscavige, this has changed. If any Scientologist takes any drugs, even under doctor's orders, they will be interrogated on why they didn't "use Scientology to cure the problem". Miscavige's church will assume the Scientologist is guilty of crimes because they took any drugs.

    The Scientologist will have to pay for many hours of "sec checks" to prove they are innocent (or, more usually, confirm they are guilty) -- so most Scientologists will forgo all drugs to avoid that unpleasantness and expense.

    But, I've wandered a bit away from answering your specific question.

    The real answer to your question is: In Scientology, celebrities get special treatment and are not abused or dictated to as regular Scientologists are. The rules really don't apply to celebrities.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Bill,

    In my research of Scientology I have frequently noticed that long-term members (famous and non-famous) gradually filter out their non-Scientology friends and associates. To the point where almost all their friends are Scientologists and their social life is mostly centered on Scientology-related activities.

    Do you agree with this generalization, and if so, what in your opinion is the cause(s) of it? Does it have anything to do with Scientologists (those who have reached the level of ‘Clear’ or higher) considering themselves Homo Novus and gradually losing interest in associating with lowly WOGS? Or is it simply that Scientology dogma requires members to slowly isolate themselves from the outside world so that they can be more easily programmed and controlled?

    ReplyDelete
  130. @The good old dog

    I completely agree with your observation. This definitely does happen. The longer one is in Scientology, the more one becomes isolated from the non-Scientology world and wrapped up in Scientology-controlled activities.

    If you review the teachings, indoctrination and dogma of Scientology, you cannot miss the continued and pervasive push towards isolating Scientologists from other influences. The outside world is, according to Scientology, corrupt and degraded. The outside world is dangerous, populated by enemies of Scientology.

    The Scientology terminology itself causes isolation -- eventually the Scientologist no longer remembers how to communicate normally.

    And yes, that Homo Novis "Scientology attitude" of sneering superiority towards those "too stupid or evil to see Scientology's truth". How could anyone associate with people who are so stupid and evil?

    While it appears to be the Scientologist's choice to disconnect from the world, it is, in fact caused by the core Scientology teachings.

    By the way, this indoctrination to fear the outside world and the resulting isolation is a basic characteristic of a cult.

    ReplyDelete
  131. WOW, Bill! Your posting on Cult Characteristics is incredible. After I had been in Scientology and Dianetics for over 55 years I read a similar article showing the characteristics of a cult. I looked at every cult characteristic and the only rational conclusion was that every single point, and there were about 16 in this article, applied to Scientolgy. I decided I could not be a party to this kind of deception.
    This was the very beginning of my break with the C of $. Thank you for your accurate examples of how the Church embodies each characteristic. Great job, Bill. The Old Geezer

    ReplyDelete
  132. @Bill

    I’d like to ask about Scientology auditing and remembering alleged “past lives.”

    1) How does an auditor get a Scientologist to remember a past life? Some of the stories I have read online about what Scientologists ‘recall’ are so wild I was curious to know the methods an auditor uses to accomplish this feat.
    2) Is it mandatory for every Scientologist to recall a past life?

    ReplyDelete
  133. @The good old dog

    The method is, essentially, as laid out in basic Dianetics technique, plus some use of the e-meter. All this is based on Hubbard's idea that you must get the "earliest incident" concerning whatever problem you are handling.

    The auditor asks for the incident causing the problem and the pc finds something, usually this lifetime.

    If the incident "doesn't resolve" -- meaning no floating needle, no relief, the auditor asks for an "earlier, similar incident". And the pc searches earlier for that. Assuming he finds something, they handle that. This continues as long as each earlier incident "doesn't resolve".

    At some point, the pc can't locate any earlier incident in this life. At that point, the pc looks earlier (meaning past life). And so it goes.

    That's really all there is to it.

    Are these past life incidents real? Normally, the only "proof" is what the e-meter does. If you think the e-meter works as claimed, then it's all real. In truth, many Scientologists don't truly believe what they come up with in session -- many get the idea they are "faking it". Of course, many others are relatively certain of their past life recalls.

    If a Scientologist can't recall past lives, their case is considered bugged and needs to be handled until they can -- or at least until they believe they can. So, in that sense, it is mandatory.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Thanks for the response, Bill.

    I personally don’t believe in past lives, but it is interesting how an auditor can get a Scientologist to ‘recall’ such amazing stories. I’m referring to those who genuinely believe what they say. To me, it seems like another example of Scientology mind-control. Example: If someone can ‘remember’ a past life being a galactic warrior on another planet, then accepting something like Xenu later on is not too difficult for him/her.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Bill, excellent article.
    You and Pogo have summed it up correctly: "We have met the enemy and he is us." Looking back at my failures to take responsibility when I should have for the Church's erroneous behavior I see several things. If you are trying to get through a course or a level of auditing it is much easier and certainly tremendously less expensive to put on your blinders, do what you have to do to get through, not make waves and thus stay out of Review and the Ethics Division. When the Sea Org would come to Saint Hill and take over the course rooms you maintained a very low sort of invisible profile and if you were smart you did NOTHING. By that I mean no discourse with the Sea Org Gestapo and no auditing of others. You were blasted for making mistakes in auditing and trying to help others but nothing happened and you fared much better if you simply did not audit. After each S.O. mission the statistics would, of course, crash.
    The entire system is geared to punish you physically, mentally and financially for not going along with the flow or thrust of the Church. Want to really get in trouble....point out to the Church staff the reference(s) showing their actions are incorrect. Many people I know were booted out of the Church for doing what you are supposed to do. The Old Geezer

    ReplyDelete
  136. @The Old Geezer

    I've copied your last two comments over to the articles you were commenting on. I hope you don't mind.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Hi Bill,
    I just read a thread on ESMB (as of now it's still rather short) where members discuss Marty Rathbun's latest blog post about his involvement with OSA. If the analysis of the ESMB posters is accurate, that would make Rathbun a lot scarier than I thoiught he was. I would love to hear your opinion on that (provided you have the time to read it). Thank you.
    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=20556

    ReplyDelete
  138. Re: Marty's latest

    I don't have much time, and I find Marty's posts rather tedious and self-serving, but I did check it out.

    I'll tell you that the thing that most struck me was that Marty is starting to sound like the Church of Scientology, speaking of "haters", altering history and what various events "mean" -- and, of course, lots of justifications for everything.

    I think it's inevitable, Scientology policy pretty much demands that any true believer or organization must end up exactly like the church.

    We shouldn't be surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Re: Rathbun.

    Yes, I thought so. But the good thing is that he will never be able to "rehabilitate" the term Scientology, so he will only influence those people who're unable to escape the mental trap. It's just so weird that he displays the same characteristics of the man he regards as evil incarnate, and he doesn't see it. Thanks for the reply. I'm checking your site every day, and it's always a pleasant surprise when I see a new post. Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  140. @Anonymous

    What's so weird? M.R. is a sociopath. Period. End of story. Read up on sociopaths and then nothing he does will ruffle the waters of your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Hello, Bill. As an outsider I'm struck by how little visible change there has been to the CoS in recent years in light of the mounting number of public defections, breakaway groups, public protests and intensely critical press accounts. I expected some very obvious crack in the facade to have appeared by now--widespread sudden church closings; Miscavige declared a missing person and the resulting leadership crisis; the FBI or IRS shuts down their Clearwater headquarters, something along those lines. What will it take to trigger an unmistakable signal that the church has hit the rocks? What form do you think that "crash" will take? Or have I got it wrong--is Miscavige so well financed that he can keep up appearances for decades, and the church's demise will take the form of a long slow whimper, without any bang? Thanks in advance for your answer and kudos on a great blog.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Re: Church of Scientology's demise

    Well, that's the problem. You see, more than 90% of Scientology has always been façade, so it has always been almost impossible to see the real Scientology.

    It has always been a front -- glossy literature, elaborate events, press releases -- image, image, image.

    Behind the façade, it has always been quite different, today it is more so. While there are church closings, they haven't been so widespread yet. But how many "still open" churches are in "lights only" condition most of the time, no actual operation, no staff, all utilities shut down except for the lights -- so it still looks like it is open? Hard to say, but I'm betting it's a lot more than you might think.

    We do know that the edges are crumbling. Many of the "Scientology groups" are gone -- just a name in the phone book. Almost all "Scientology Missions" are closed or, at best, open only a few hours per week out of someone's living room. All the organizations are struggling, not paying staff, way behind on rent and utilities, empty and desperate.

    It will look slow because the façade will be held in place for as long as possible, but that will only make the final collapse seem that much more catastrophic. Behind the curtain is total collapse.

    David Miscavige is already spending a lot of time out of the country, and I figure he has his lavish estate already bought and staffed in some paradise with no extradition to the U.S. -- the church billions are already totally under his control and not in the U.S.

    Every day it's worse for the church, and Miscavige won't use any of "his" money to help -- except to fund more façade. It's coming ... wait for it.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Dude, I really like your insights. Buncha questions.

    What do you think of (positive, negative, effective, other). Your take on:
    -Magoo
    -XenuTVguy
    -Tom Cruise
    -Andreas OCMB guy

    LRH seems like he was a real wannabe Naval officer. (I was one, and much more successful than he. My dad was one in WW2 PAC and knew LRH was a fuckup also.) When I read all the terms they use "ORG" "FLAG" etc. they sound like the sort of Naval abreviations: BUPERS, COMSUBPAC, etc. Plus the goofy unicorns and the memos and procedures and checklists and all that. Seem reminiscent of the real Navy. Thoughts?

    I also see a lot of Sci Fi influences in Scientology. EVer read The Unpleasant Profession of Jonothan Hoag? Seems similar to some of LRH stuff, no?

    How evil is it if I just sort of read some of this stuff enjoying the drama and sort of the freak show aspect of it. I mean intellectually I know people were hurt and all that. But still it seems like a lot of the fascination on the net and even protesting is like beating a pinata or something. No?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Oh...your take on Ensifer too. :)

    ReplyDelete
  145. Re: LRH and his "Navy"

    You are spot on about Hubbard and his ersatz navy. According to all official records, he failed miserably as a Naval officer and I think the whole "Sea Org" thing with "Flag", "PAC" and so on was his continuing battle with himself to prove he really, really, really could be a competent Naval officer.

    And, yes, a lot of Hubbard's science fiction stories did end up as part of the Scientology "whole track history". It's a bit disconcerting for Scientologists to find "confidential OT materials" in some of Hubbard's fiction.

    As for commenting on individual people -- independents, critics or Scientologists, I prefer not to. When I have mentioned specific names, I have done so very reluctantly and I have always regretted it. I dislike reducing the discussion down to personality, as it is off-topic and a distraction from what I think is important -- which is beliefs, problems and actions.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Comment on the enjoying the freak show aspect?

    ReplyDelete
  147. Re: Freak show

    I must admit to the enjoyment of observing the slow-motion train wreck of the Church of Scientology. I sometimes enjoy reading the various dramas going on with "Independent Scientologists", critics, Anonymous, the church and OSA. At times it is jaw-droppingly absurd, a freak show in truth.

    And sometimes the drama just makes me turn away and take a break from it all. Too serious, too "important". People fussing who have totally lost all sense of humor and sense of proportion.

    Some days, I don't think about Scientology at all. Those are good days.

    ReplyDelete
  148. I wonder if the Scientology term wog comes from the term pollywog. Someone who has not crossed the equator (opposite of a shellback). In the USN, it's not really something to differentiate people. Except when you cross the equator. Then anyone who is crossing for the first time goes through a hazing ceremony and changes from a pollywog to a shellback. But it's really only something you worry about when you go south of zero. Hubbard by the way, served in Australia, so he should have gone through the shellback initiation.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Re: "Wog"

    No, I don't think so. When Hubbard started using the term "wog" to mean non-Scientologists, he specifically compared it with the British insulting term for "natives". He obviously meant to infer that non-Scientologists were unintelligent and primitive, just as the British insult infers "white man superiority".

    ReplyDelete
  150. Why are the women in scientology so hot? I mean Tory Magoo...totally dig her cute demeanor. And now with 100 pounsds gone? I mean, she's really very good looking for her age. Same deal with that Dancing in Boston lady (cute hawtie). then that Italian girl, Tory had on her video. Vavavoom! I mean if I were elron, I would have ditched the checklists and just come up with a Mormon cult where all these women would be my brides on the ship.

    (Kind of a funpost, but seriously, there are a lot of lookers...on the female side. kind of surprised as you would think that they would not be so susceptible to being manipulated.)

    ReplyDelete
  151. @ Bill

    Has there ever been a reported case of a Scientologist who reached the OT VIII level and then left the cult? If the answer is "no", why do you suppose that is? The highest I have ever read someone defecting was at OT VII.

    ReplyDelete
  152. @The good old dog

    Oh, tons! I think most OT VIIIs have now left. I personally know of quite a number of them.

    Back when I was a True Believer, I was struck by how OT VIIIs seemed to withdraw and not want to have much to do with Scientology after VIII. Now I know why. OT VIII is a really crappy level, has been re-written quite a number of times but still people get sick, depressed and upset after running it. Besides the fact that, after all those promises, all that time and ALL THAT MONEY, "true OT" just isn't delivered.

    No, as a rule, OT VIIIs do not stay in Scientology.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Why do they have so much adminstrative crap? It seems like they spend all their time filing paperwork and tracking crap and writing memos. It seems even worse than the real Navy. How much of a productivity drain is all that paperchasing?

    ReplyDelete
  154. Re: Administrative crap

    That was all Hubbard's fault. He dictated all the administrative, micro-management policies that all of Scientology must follow in full.

    When his administrative policies are implemented in full and in detail, the entire organization grinds to a halt. They have little choice.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Hello, Bill. I am curious about Scientologists' view of God or gods. I gather that "total freedom" means restoring one's god-like powers. But I'm not clear whether they hold any belief in a creator god outside of themselves... would it be accurate to call Scientologists, at least the ones who have been through the OT materials, atheists?

    ReplyDelete
  156. Re: God & gods

    Hubbard declared that the "8th Dynamic" was "infinity, also commonly called God" but refused to otherwise acknowledge God or refer to Him at all. I think, in reality, Hubbard was an atheist and only gave a nod to God to keep from alienating people.

    As for OTs, since they NEVER got ANY powers, let alone "god-like powers", one can assume their beliefs concerning God were unchanged by Scientology.

    ReplyDelete
  157. What exactly is "power processing" and why is it so friggin' expensive?

    ReplyDelete
  158. Re: Power processing

    These are special rundowns, originally developed for executives, to handle any considerations and problems they might have with the concepts of "source", "existence" and "conditions" (these are supposed to be the "awareness characteristics" of an executive). These processes are supposed to be confidential, but are well known today.

    They are expensive simply because the Church of Scientology is very, very greedy. The processes are only delivered at the upper level churches, where everything is more expensive.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Hello, Bill. I've been watching some of those in-house Scientology films that are available on the internet, including one that is designed to get members to go to Flag in Clearwater. I'm amazed at how, in enthusiastic testimonial after testimonial, the scientologists say absolutely nothing specific. "It completely unraveled my case!" "wins and cognitions," "you know what you know," "things straightened out," "it opened me up as a being," etc. My question is this: surely Scientologists can see what I see, that these claims are so vague as to be meaningless--I just can't imagine being sold on such a pitch. Yet, evidently they are compelled by these "claims". Why? What am I missing?

    ReplyDelete
  160. Re: Vague, meaningless claims

    One of the first things Scientologists are taught is that they must never "discuss their case" outside of session. This means that everything they say about their "wins" from session must be vague -- they may never say anything specific.

    So they don't, and they are quite used to everyone else being very, very vague. This is expected.

    Hence, they all imagine what wonderful things happened that all these "success stories" are hinting about.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Hi Bill,

    as far as I know being recognized as a charity (501 c) lobbying is forbidden or very limited. Didn't the "church" publicly support proposition 8 in California ?(one of the reasons Paul Haggis left) What exactly is the "church"-related CCHR doing? I'd say they lobby 24/7 against psychiatry. The "church" also lobbyied in favour of the DMCA, they lobby the UN to ensure that Germany is reprimanded for their oh so terrible "religious intolerance" (IMO,you gotts love that country just for the fact that they keep the cult on a tight leash). On a local basis they lobby politicians and law enforcement to be granted special treatment (to prevent people from protesting etc.) Anyway, as I see it they lobby all the time, so my question is: How the f*** do they get away with that? I know they've pulled a lot of shit with impunity, but this is too much. Or is it?

    ReplyDelete
  162. Re: Lobbying

    I understand your frustration. The problem is that the regulations regarding charities and lobbying are too ambiguous for strict interpretation or enforcement. While extreme situations may be obvious, there is a lot of middle ground where lobbying may be permitted.

    I am not an expert, but I think CCHR is a good example of this middle ground. Since CCHR's stated purpose is to eradicate psychiatry, its actions toward that goal, including lobbying for anti-psychiatry legislation, may be perfectly permissible. That is, their lobbying isn't for private gain but actually forwards their stated "charitable" purposes.

    We may not like it, but it appears to be quite legal.

    In the fuzzier area is the church's support for the DMCA and California's Prop 8. I suspect these are much more questionable. However, the core ambiguity of the 501c regulation may make any prosecution difficult, if not impossible -- especially considering the church's stable of million-dollar lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
  163. @ Bill

    I have a question about long-term, committed Scientologists and how they interpret Scientology.

    Is it possible for people such as this to retain enough critical thinking skills in their daily lives to the point that they can ignore (presumably discreetly) the many outrageous, bizarre aspects of Scientology and merely accept the stuff that is harmless and generally helpful? If so, does this happen a lot? Or is the thought-control process of Scientology so powerful that ALL committed members eventually accept the cult's view of reality one-hundred percent?

    ReplyDelete
  164. @The good old dog

    That is a good question, and somewhat difficult to answer, since it calls for knowing what people think.

    But let me answer as best I can from personal experience and conversations I've had with ex-Scientologists (you won't get full disclosure from current Scientologists).

    I think all Scientologists believe they are always fully capable of critical thinking -- even as they practice thought control on themselves. It is part of the dogma of Scientology that Scientologists are better at thinking than "wogs" -- so Scientologists would believe that.

    But while a Scientologist is a Scientologist, they cannot and will not permit themselves to doubt anything in Scientology. If questioned, they will claim they (a) have evaluated everything in Scientology and (b) agree completely.

    It is only after they have left Scientology will they "remember" that they did disagree, they did have doubts and unanswered questions.

    And, I'm sure it's absolutely true. When in Scientology, they had -- and suppressed doubts and disagreements -- so thoroughly that they "didn't see them". But they were there and could be remembered later.

    I hope that explains how that all works. Yes, it isn't sane.

    ReplyDelete
  165. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  166. @The good old dog

    The very strict, Scientology dogma is "any criticism of Hubbard, Miscavige, Scientology or the leadership of the Church of Scientology means you have overts".

    In other words, all Scientologists know that to say anything critical is the equivalent to confessing one is evil -- a suppressive. So they don't. Period. If they ever did say something critical, the Scientologist they said it to would be required to report them.

    ReplyDelete
  167. How often is there turnover in the leadership of an org?

    Is it really common, like at a pizza joint, or does leadership become entrenched for long periods of time?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  168. Re: Turnover at the top of an org

    It depends. In my experience, the top positions are usually held for long periods of time, years.

    However, there are exceptions. At times, the turnover can be quite rapid, depending on how the org is doing and if the leaders piss off upper management.

    Today, I suspect we're pretty solidly on the staying-there-for-years side of things -- because, while every org is doing very poorly, there is no one left to replace the top positions. I suspect that staff of most orgs is down to four or fewer people, and they're all holding key positions. Nobody can be removed.

    Further, I believe there are a number of orgs that are only staffed part time, very part time -- perhaps one defection away from closing.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Hello, quick question: OSA monitors all the negative sites, like this one and many others, correct? How can they be immune to the constant "entheta"? Are they re-indoctrinated daily or how daoes it work? Is there a Brainwash Certainty Rundown to find those who can resist the cognitive dissonance? Or is the blow rate higher compared to other positions?

    ReplyDelete
  170. Re: OSA re-indoctrination

    I have to admit that I don't know the answer to this one. I've never worked in or with OSA or talked with anyone who has. Maybe Tory could answer that question over on ESMB.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Bill, I hope you have a terrific Christmas. Your advice on how to deal with the C of $ on getting monies back for services paid for and not used has been very helpful. Will keep you posted on our progress and hopefully what we learn will help others who read this blog. May 2011 be the best year yet for you. The Old Geezer

    ReplyDelete
  172. @The Old Geezer,

    Thank you! And the best to you and your family as well.

    Let me tell you, every day is the best day of my life.

    Bill

    ReplyDelete
  173. Hello, Bill. Happy holidays and best wishes for the new year. At dinner tonight, the topic turned to the restaurant at the "Celebrity Centre" here in Los Angeles (I haven't been). It occurred to me that Hubbard, with his proclivity for making pronouncements about every branch of human activity, must have handed down some ideas about food. Did he have dietary recommendations, or even recipes? Are members of the Sea Org expected to hew to some dietary regimen? (I have heard about the rice and beans for the RPFers, but nothing else.)

    ReplyDelete
  174. Re Food

    Yes, happy holidays and happy new year to you as well.

    The only food related instructions from Hubbard that I'm aware of is the "rice and beans". According to Hubbard, that punishment meal was "sufficient" in protein and nutrients for survival.

    I remember, back when I was in the Sea Org, being fed rice and beans as "punishment" and being quite amused, since I happened to love rice and beans -- it was better than the "regular" food we were usually fed.

    I don't think Hubbard made any other pronouncements about food -- but I have heard that he was very picky about his own meals -- with a personal chef and a separate menu from the crew.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Hi, Bill... it's that time of year: got any Scientology related predictions for 2011?

    ReplyDelete
  176. I have been reading about Scientology for few months now, I am so glad I found your blog, since I had a few questions but found the few times I posted on other blogs, that wogs are sadly ignored...

    What is the difference between an Independant and a Freezone Scientologist? and (I realize you are no longer a scientologist so may not be able to answer this) what kind of fees are they charging to audit? (I asked this because it seems to me that the focus on money is one of the ways the COS used to abuse its members)...

    ReplyDelete
  177. @wytherin

    The difference between an Independent and Freezone Scientologist is impossible to define because there are so many flavors.

    Most outside Scientologists will claim that they practice absolutely pure Scientology (what they call "Standard Tech") -- and they will accuse other practitioners of "squirrelling".

    The major problem is that there really is no governing body to define exactly what is "Standard Tech". That used to be the Church of Scientology, but Miscavige has muddied that all up by rewriting and redefining much of Scientology technology.

    So each outside practitioner or group has to decide for themselves what tech is "pure".

    The simple answer to your question is that, in general, there really is no difference between Freezone and Independent. They all follow Hubbard and attempt to practice Scientology "exactly" according to what Hubbard wrote.

    However (oh, this is complex!), there can be significant differences between individual practitioners. Some outside practitioners have decided to experiment and see if they can improve on what Hubbard wrote. While a major group, called "Ron's Org" (which has quite a number of organizations in Russia and Europe) claims to practice "Standard Tech", they also deliver a whole set of "OT Levels" developed by "Captain" Bill Robertson.

    Without a central governing body, there will inevitably be more and more disagreements on what constitutes "pure" Scientology -- as well as more experimentation. The number of different flavors of "Scientology" will only increase and fragment.

    But, as I said, they will all attempt to follow Hubbard, and so they will all be very similar whether they call themselves "Independent", "Freezone" or something else.

    I hope I didn't confuse the issue for you.

    As for prices, I have no hard facts, but my impression is that their prices are much lower than the Church of Scientology's prices -- and they do not "fund-raise" or ask for "pure donations". I've heard that several outside practitioners ask people to "pay whatever you think is appropriate".

    As I've said before, it is doubtful that Scientology's built-in abuses will survive the demise of the church.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Re: Predictions

    Let me think about that.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Re: Food

    I was just reminded, Hubbard also said that new mothers should feed their babies on his "barley" formula instead of breast milk.

    Very bad advice.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Thank you for your answer. I find myself reading the Indie sites and freezoners sparingly, mostly because their jargon drives me insane! (hmmm... that could be deliberate)... I find myself wondering if this is the "result" of mental excercise and learning to communicate, that I am better off not knowing how..

    Long ago, I knew a handsome kid who tried to sell me on the COS and LRon, I passed after slogging through the book " Dianetics" (I love to read and am even an avid sci fi and mind studies fan, but I only got through that book because I wanted to have something to talk to the cutie about)... I thought the book was crap (and made the mistake of telling cutie so) and our love affair never blossomed.. I found out several years later that he had committed suicide, and while it made me sad, this was the 80s and I never connected the suicide to COS...

    Now reading about the abuses, I wonder, and am saddened again..

    I asked about pay structure of the Independants, because in my religion, tithing(which is the closest thing I can think of to their 'donations') is asked for, but voluntary. But then, I am not really seeing a religion in COS, because in most religions, whatever your flavor, there is the promise of Grace, and Peace, and that seems in short supply...

    No real question in this I guess, just a thanks for the answer and allowing me to walk down memory lane.

    ReplyDelete
  181. I'm really confused all the time. Is Scientlogy good or bad, my best friend is a scientologist and left boston almost 2 years ago to go to D.C. to join the church there. I've seen him a few times since and everytime he seems truly happy, but everytime I think I'm just being paranoid there seems to be something that just doesn't add up. But then again everytime I completely believe it is a cult, all of a sudden I find something that makes me think that I'm just paranoid. And I'm so afraid to say anything to him cause I don't want to be marked as a suppressive and never be able to talk to him ever again.....

    ReplyDelete
  182. Re: Good or bad

    Yes, Scientology is good and bad. The good part is that it can make some people happier. While this is far less than the miracles Scientology promises, "being happier" isn't a bad thing.

    However, the bad aspects far outweigh the benefits of "being happier".

    One bad part is that is is a cult. Once someone becomes a Scientologist, they lose their ability to have any independent thoughts. Everything becomes "according to Hubbard". They become easily led and easily defrauded.

    Another bad part is that Scientology lies. They lie about what they can produce, they lie about what they are doing, they lie to get money and they lie to keep members from leaving.

    I've written about its cult characteristics here and here. There is no doubt that it is a cult.

    Your statement "I'm so afraid to say anything to him cause I don't want to be marked as a suppressive and never be able to talk to him ever again" is a clear indication of how horrible and destructive the Church of Scientology is.

    My advice is: Do not say anything negative to your friend about Scientology. There is no reason to destroy your friendship over this.

    If your friend starts going into massive debt, plans to join the Sea Org or some other self-destructive action, you might need to say something. While you should still avoid negative statements, there are other things you can do. If this looks like the path you need to take, tell me. There are some links I could provide that might help.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Is "think" a trigger word in Co$? I notice that many anti-Co$ comments on `SP Times Tax Neglect` article that have this word are pounced on by OSAbots. If I get bored enough to really look deeper I will send stats.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Re: "Think" is a trigger word.

    No, not to my knowledge. I can't think of any reason why it would be. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  185. Hello, Bill, and best wishes for 2011. Thanks for all of your valuable posts in past years.

    I am curious about the mindset of some of the "independents" regarding "source," Marty Rathbun being a prominent example. Rathbun seems reasonable and open to critical thinking, yet when he talks about Scientology, he exhibits an unquestioning faith in LRH and "standardness." It seems strange to me that practitioners who are in some sense thinking for themselves are so quick to snuff out any science in Scientology: i.e., there doesn't seem to be interest in actually investigating the results of Hubbard's work, isolating the good, discarding the bad or indifferent, moving forward as science does. What is it that makes dogmatism about LRH seem so key to a practice which in some sense aspires to be scientific (which is inherently provisional and anti-dogmatic)?

    ReplyDelete
  186. Best wishes to you, and you are welcome.

    Re: "Science"

    While LRH has, rather off-handedly, claimed that Scientology is research and science based, there is no science in Scientology. No Scientologist puts much importance in science.

    If pressed, they will vaguely mention the Axioms and Logics that Hubbard wrote, which sound quite authoritative, but few Scientologists claim to understand them -- and none actually do.

    So, the "science" part isn't important nor, obviously, understood by Scientologists.

    But "Standard Tech" and "Exact Application", those concepts are hammered into each and every Scientologist. You've undoubtedly heard mention of Keeping Scientology Working. In it, Hubbard demands that no changes should ever be made to his tech -- forever. Anyone who even thinks about changing anything Hubbard wrote is immediately and automatically a Suppressive Person. That's what Hubbard said.

    Therefore, good Scientologists can't consider any changes or even any questions.

    Even when it doesn't work.

    Of course, when it doesn't work, Scientologists are trained to blame themselves, never the tech.

    The Keeping Scientology Working policies are considered senior to anything else in Scientology. Therefore absolute acceptance of whatever Hubbard said is unquestioned.

    As I said, there is no science in Scientology, and Scientologists never notice.

    ReplyDelete
  187. wytherin here, You don't have to post this, these are just some thoughts I had and since my families eyes tend to glaze over when I talk about anything of a psychological nature (I don't get why they don't find this stuff fascinating!) I thought I would put it here, since your site has been the catalyst for me having these observations.

    One of the things that fascinates me about this subject, is how insidious this cult thinking is, and how even people who have been "technically out" for years, still hold on to it, in spite of proof that so much of the tech and claims of OT powers is baloney.

    Part of my sick time reading (and watching Youtube) was on Cults in general, how they get people in, and how they keep them blinded. I watched one young man, explain that for quite a long time after he left the cult(and he had only been in for a short time), he had to be watched and do therapy to keep him from falling for every scam known to man out there, because his critical thinking skills were completely gone.

    Having never been in a cult, I was however struck, by a similiarity to another condition. My family has a problem with hoarding. I am not a hoarder myself (although I have some of the thinking patterns, which I am constantly on guard against), but almost every other sibling has it to one degree or another. My mother is also one.

    Hoarders fall into several types, ours would be what I would call Sentimental, or "someone might want this" types. Sentimental Hoarders can't let go of things that remind them of a good time in their life, or a person it belonged to, or reminds you of. I once got into a horrible fight with my mother because she wanted to keep a dry rotted macrame owl my Granny made, even though we had dozens of wonderful handmade quilts of hers. Even though the owl was in serious danger of falling apart by touching it, my Mom couldn't let it go..

    The other thinking that gets hoarders stuck (there are other types of hoarders but these two fit what I see in ex scios) is the " This might be useful to someone" or I paid money for this, its wasteful to throw it out" types. Hoarders like this, will buy a new couch, but not be able to get rid of the old couch, (or clothes,books, records) because they paid for it , and throwing it away means throwing money away. Or they have the mistaken idea someone, somewhere would LOVE to have that pee stained couch that the dog barfed on last week....

    I see the seeds of this thinking in some of the Freezoners or Indies, Even in the face of evidence that the most of Scientology is a scam (certainly the higher levels), and in the face of broken families, financial ruin, and becoming closed off from so much of the world intellectually. They go back to it, because they can't break their thought patterns. They remember their younger days, the other Scios that they missed (sometimes it seems like a high school reunion site on some of the sites).. Or they can't bear to throw it out, because somewhere, somehow, there has to be some use to it..

    The interesting thing is that the main treatment in Hoarding, is to reconnect with your critical thinking skills, and to be willing to suffer some seperation anxiety (which gets better as you get more used to letting things go). To be willing to say, "Yes, I wasted time and money on that, but continuing to do it, won't bring the time or the money back."

    Does any of this sound familiar? Or am I just projecting?

    ReplyDelete
  188. Hi, you answered on of my questions a few days ago, on the 27th about my friend who's a scientologist. He did join sea org, but he left it, I think for the most part. 2 years ago once he turned 16 started working ata scientologist church here in boston because his mom is high up in the church. Then just like that he told me he was going down to Clearwater, FL to join Sea Org. Thn 2 days later he was gone. After about a week and a half he called me and told me that he was coming back because he felt so far away from home and he just wanted to leave, so he did. After about 3 weeks of being here, he was asked by his parents if he wanted to go to the Church in New York because it would be a lot closer but he'd still be in teh church, and so he left again. after about a year, he was asked to help out with the church being built in Washington D.C. and he's been there ever since. I'm starting to get worried because a while ago he asked me to take some courses here in boston about scientology but I said no and he hasn't said anything to me since...I'm not sure if I am paranoid or not, but I feel like he's ruining his life. I mean, I know he says that he is happy, but at what cost? If, let's just say in 10 he decides does want to leave the church. what is he gonna do, he's probably gonna be in a lot of debt, not to mention having a freeloaders bill hoisted on him an dhe hasn't finished highschool so he wouldn't even be able to get a decent job. How can he possibly see any good in any of this?
    Sorry about the rant, I feel like I vented on you just a little.

    ReplyDelete
  189. @wytherin

    Thanks for your thoughts on hoarding. I think there may be quite a bit of that in Scientology, especially in the Church of Scientology. People invest their lives in Scientology. It isn't just all the money they give, although that is a large part of it, but they give up their friends, their careers, sometimes their family, all for *Scientology*. There is, for every Scientologist, a huge investment.

    And I believe that almost every Scientologist comes to the realization that the did not get any of the promised powers and abilities. I am sure that every Scientologist hates the greed and unrelenting pressure from the church.

    But, like a hoarder, "after all that time and money, after giving up so much, how can I just quit?"

    And they stick with it, way past any real hope of getting anything back for that "investment".

    Even outside of the church, there is still a ton of "investment" involved, if not so much money.

    I know of some Scientologists who keep repeating the party line just because they can't admit they were wrong and others were right.

    I think your observation is excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Re: Friend who is a Scientologist

    I've been on both sides of that. The reason your friend doesn't talk to you any more is all about cult-think. The cult is all important and everything is subsumed to that culture. You are not part of the cult, so you are completely unimportant. Anything that isn't part of the cult is either unimportant or evil.

    That's how all cult members think and that's how all Scientologists think.

    I sincerely doubt he is angry at you. It's just that you aren't important.

    As I understand it, your friend is in too deep for you to help him right now.

    What you can do is write to him and simply let him know that, if he ever needs help, you are there. He probably won't respond and probably won't ask for help, but he will remember. When he finally wakes up, hopefully he will contact you. Obviously, he can't go to his parents for help.

    When he contacts you for help, what he will most need is someone to listen and not judge.

    Between now and then, you'll just have to wait.

    ReplyDelete
  191. "It isn't just all the money they give, although that is a large part of it, but they give up their friends, their careers, sometimes their family, all for *Scientology*. There is, for every Scientologist, a huge investment."

    Yes! Hoarders do this also. They will save things because of Sentiment (family) yet because of all their things, can't have family or friends over. They become virtual prisoners of their "stuff".

    They can't move, or change jobs (if they are even employed, because taking care of the stuff or negotiating a house to get ready for work becomes a nightmare at first, and then impossible).

    Hoarders, especially extreme hoarders (disorganized hoarder, saves everything, can't even get rid of a dead animal for example) are often completely shut down, emotionally. They lose their ability to empathize (see that its abusive to have kids or pets living in the situation).. They are able to tolerate so much discomfort( horrible smells, I went in with a dog rescue once where we had to wear hazmat suits with respirators, and the person said it wasnt "bad", and she had cleaned "just last month")..

    When people talk about how SO can still stay in the COS working under such extreme conditions I can't help but think of how numbed out the human psyche can become, in order to tolerate discomfort.

    Sorry, last post on this stuff. I know this is about Scientology, but it finally hit me why it resonated so much with me, while reading these websites (Its like living with my family)

    ReplyDelete
  192. Happy New Year's, Bill. 2011 promises to be the best yet. Regarding "think" being a trigger word my experience with almost all Scientologists is they look down on using the word "think" as "knowingness" is what they strive for and "thinking" is way down the Know to Mystery scale since LRH has told them so.
    Best, the Old Geezer.

    ReplyDelete
  193. @ Bill

    I have a question about the Clear level in Scientology and what it does to people.

    As has often been reported, here and elsewhere, no TRUE Clear has ever been produced. However, there is apparently a lot of indoctrination and thought-control drills that the Scientologist must endure before they reach that level.

    I am curious to know what mental and psychological changes happen to a person who attests to being Clear in Scientology. Or does it affect their basic personality at all? (apart from being more receptive to further Scientology mind-control).

    For example: In a July 4th 2010 blog posting, you wrote....”all Scientologists, as part of their indoctrination, receive a humorectomy. Scientology carefully and thoroughly removes all possibility of a sense humor.” I would assume this “achievement” is definitely accomplished by the time a Scientologist is a Clear?

    I have read the CoS propaganda on this subject (“erasing the reactive mind”...etc.) but wanted to get your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  194. @The good old dog

    Re: Clear

    Most people who have "attested to Clear" report that they felt quite wonderful at that time, and all report that the feeling was temporary.

    None of them report any special abilities or powers.

    But your question is different. What other changes occur -- perhaps harmful ones?

    I'd have to say there are none. From my personal experiences, my observations and my discussions with other "Clears", I'd have to say there really are no permanent changes at all. A person "before Clear" and that same person "Clear" are not different. They don't act different and they don't feel different in any significant way.

    The changes I have perceived in myself and other Scientologists come primarily from the indoctrination and has to do with becoming a cult-personality, with self-censoring and shutting oneself off from the external world. Those changes are "permanent", as long as one stays in Scientology.

    Personally, I don't think auditing affects any significant changes to a person -- positive or negative.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Dear Bill:
    In the latest 25 th anniversary of Impact DM boasts getting Smith Kline Glaxo out of the psycho drugs.
    To me, as no proof is rendered, it is another Miscavige PR production: Hot air, foul smell, no data!

    ReplyDelete
  196. Re: "Smith Kline Glaxo"

    I have no idea, since there is no company called "Smith Kline Glaxo". Maybe that's some company Miscavige started just so he could announce that "fact".

    The company Glaxo Smithkline appears to be doing just fine, no announcements of curtailing any of their product offerings. In fact, they specifically list, as current products, all their anti-depressants and similar "psych drugs".

    Surprise, surprise! Miscavige lies.

    ReplyDelete
  197. It's still amazing that with all the data available that even some of the folks that left still hang on to the "Hubbard was a great man" crap. Reading the data from http://www.ronthenut.org just pisses me off. Lrh was just looking for easy street and admiration. A scammer may be a piece of shit, but (IMO) it takes a psychotic to take it to the level of his fruition.

    I guess I have to ask a question now... hmm...

    Did Hubbard walk with a limp?

    ReplyDelete
  198. Rants are OK. No question actually required.

    ReplyDelete