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.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Hiding Scientology

While watching the comments of Marty's group, which has declared itself the "Independent Scientology Group", I have been waiting for them to, well, implement Scientology.

I think it's great they are auditing each other and do Scientology training.  Really.  If someone wants Scientology auditing or training, and someone else provides that, well that's the way it should be.  If no one is harmed, it's nobody's business but theirs.

But what about the other Scientology technologies?  You know, the abusive stuff -- all those "enemy" lists, "Suppressive Person" declares, disconnection orders, "PTS" declares, punishments, lower conditions and all that stuff.

After all, these are key parts of L. Ron Hubbard's technology, Hubbard said so.

Is Hubbard's all-important Ethics Tech not being applied by this group?  Did they realize these were primary policies for abuse?  Are they altering Scientology to make it "kinder and gentler"?

Ah, not so much.  Nothing of Hubbard's can be neglected or modified, that's the rules.

However, they do realize it would look bad if they started declaring people suppressive or PTS, so, like Hubbard banning the words "fair game" while at the same time urging its use, so this "Independent Scientology Group" simply doesn't use those words.

The people they have determined to be "suppressives"?  Apparently, they use the label "haters".  Suppressive groups are, therefore, called "hater sites" or "hater blogs".

Gee, isn't this the same code word, and the exact same meaning that the Church of Scientology uses for "suppressives" when they try to hide Scientology's abuse from "wogs" (non-Scientologists)?  Why, yes it is!

If you've been labelled a "hater" by this group, congratulations!  Apparently, you've been declared a suppressive.  No "Independent Scientology Group" member may talk with you.  They are supposed to disconnect from you.

And how about declaring people "PTS" (Potential Trouble Source -- someone "connected to a suppressive")?  Are they implementing that bit of "tech"?

Yes, indeed.  Look at how, and at whom, they direct the word "natterer".   It's a code word for "has overts" (has done "bad" things), and for "PTS".

So you have "natterers" and "natter boards" to indicate those who might still be Scientologists, but who are not considered "pure".  You see, these "natterers" have been corrupted by the "haters" to say bad things about Hubbard and/or Scientology.

Good Scientologists will not associate or communicate to these PTS people or groups, but there is still hope that, if the "natterers" disconnect from the "haters", they might still be recovered to "pure" Scientology.

And so it starts: the suppression of divergent thinking; the suppression of any "negative" information; the suppression of any disagreement, discussion, debate, questions or doubts.  These are key policies for creating and enforcing cult-thought-control.  No group attempting to implement all of Scientology would ever neglect these vital thought control policies. 

But they hide it because, in Scientology, if something you do is considered unacceptable by society, you just change its name and continue doing it.  (Apparently, they think "wogs" are too stupid to figure that out.)

Now don't get me wrong.  Scientologists do have the right to say what they want, make "enemies" lists and declare people "haters" and "natterers".  That is covered under freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

But I sincerely doubt that many Scientologists, escaping from the abuses and cult-thought-control of the Church of Scientology, are looking for someone else to control them.

This group is selling a straitjacket for the mind -- but freedom to think, freedom to look and freedom to disagree is just too precious for any intelligent person to buy that "tech".


  1. Just Bill, you wrote that it was "ridiculous" for me to say that anyone in Scientology or Independent Scientology is pathological, but then with each post you point out the sickness of everything about CoS or ISG.
    I don't see why you give anyone an "escape hatch" by refusing a simple, definitive statement--crazy is as crazy does and I've yet to see anyone practicing Scientology do any lasting good of any kind. Period. Sometimes the truth is ridiculously simple.

  2. Dear Bill
    Without any kind of coercion I agree with you all down the line. Freely, using all my brain.

    But is auditing harmless? I begin to wonder. **Something** in Scientology does a great deal of harm to the mind, and auditing seems to be high on the list of possible factors.

  3. @Vera Keil

    To me, everyone is different, all unique. If someone has flaws, they are different from my flaws and different from your flaws. To make a "simple, definitive" generality that, you assert, covers every Scientologist perfectly is just not valid.

    What I am attempting to do is the exact opposite. I point out some specific action by a few people that I analyze and discuss. I never make any blanket condemnation of Scientologists. I discuss actions and ideas, and their repercussions.

    There is a world of difference between my "when some Scientologists do X, then that means Y" and your "all Scientologists are Z". I hope you see the difference.

  4. @willy

    I did not say "auditing is harmless". That is an absolute statement. I said "If no one is harmed, it's nobody's business but theirs".

    Actually, I could also say "If the adult getting auditing is fully informed and fully consents, it's nobody's business but theirs" -- even if there is potential harm.

    But, to your point, I agree that Hubbard's technology should be investigated, tested and evaluated. There may be actions that are possibly harmful.

    But look at what that means. In medicine, where some drug is harmful at some dosage, in another dosage it is beneficial. Where Scientology processes have an effect, it could mean, in my mind, there is the potential for some good. That is why I've always urged investigation, research and evaluation, not outright condemnation.

  5. Sorry Bill, i think you are exaggerating a bit.

    Sure Marty calls some people "haters" and he moderates his blog as he sees fit.
    But where does he order people to disconnect from these "haters" and where does he tell them that they are not allowed to look up critical information about L. Ron Hubbard?
    Marty's group of independent Scientologists are free to do whatever they want.

  6. Re: Exaggerating

    Not at all. Of course members of Marty's group are free to do whatever they want, and I hope they do exactly that.

    But let me address your points. Why do you think Marty, and others in his group, use the term "haters" at all? Why do they feel the need to apply such a denigrating generality to all critical sites?

    Because, it's a thought-stopping term.

    Like "entheta", "suppressive" and all the other Scientology thought-stopping terms, it halts all inspection, evaluation or consideration about those sites without having to address any of the problems raised.

    You say "hater" and you immediately invalidate everything that person or site has said. All without needing to actually discuss the problems raised. All without having to provide any evidence or logic.

    Marty and co. don't have to provide any evidence, proof, information. They don't have to actually engage in any communication. They don't have to even acknowledge there are those problems. They just say "hater" and are done. In their minds, and maybe in the minds of their faithful followers, the site is gone, all problems are gone, all criticisms are gone.

    I sincerely hope that Scientologists have learned and do not fall for this trick. I sincerely hope that Scientologists ignore the "hater" label and go and look for themselves. But that Scientology indoctrination may be too hard for some to overcome. When they hear "hater" or "entheta" or "suppressive" or whatever, some may obediently avoid those people and those sites. And that is the intention of Marty and co. -- to keep any "good" Scientologist away from corrupting information without having to prove the information is false.

    No, I don't think I'm exaggerating at all.

  7. @anonymous re exaggerating
    The order is unspoken, yet implied. Commenter X makes a statement in respect of a "hater group". Marty makes a small scathing comment and his merry men continue to belittle and deride Commenter X. Usually Commenter X is not part of the inner circle of the group. No loss to the group. But there is no doubt that Commenter X is a bad, bad person.

    But what does this say to people within the inner circle, or to those desperate to belong to that inner circle? Simple. Follow the group think or you to will be made to look a fool, no one will play with you or be your friend or take you seriously.
    But this is a group you really want to belong to. It's familiar and it's safe. So what do you do. Say the right things, befriend the right people and never, ever voice any opposing thought. It's subtle disconnection and thought control.

    That being said, Marty's Independant Org has a huge advantage over the church. When a member of the group wants to leave, they can simply close down their browser and walk away.

  8. You're correct Bill. Not that you needed me to tell you that. Still, Rathbun is an interesting case because he has attracted so much attention and (among a select group of sycophants) a degree of adoration.

    What Rathbun does is what anyone in the public eye does - he seeks admiration and asserts that his perceptions are the correct ones. Politicians do it better than most - witness the Sarah Palin haters effect on national politics and international views of America.

    In addition, he has no real tolerance for disagreement, despite allowing certain hand-picked comments to be posted. Mainly he allows those that he wants to "handle" in full view.

    There is nothing dangerous about Rathbun or his goals. He really is little more than a criminal himself who has fled the gang and desires a replacement for the level of power he had while in the CofS.

    It's drama. I enjoy it from time to time. But it's going to fade soon enough. People get bored easily... even ex-Scn.


  9. A. There are a few handles, you can handle the guy on:

    1. More dirt on all the crap he did.

    2. His lack of long time tenure and LRH connection.

    3. Inability to hang with Internet cowboys.


    B. The guy seems sort of grim and bla to me. Heck, LRH or Miscavige have a lot more charisma. This guy just seems like he hid out for 5 years and is now trying to make hay. emphasising his past crimes, that he has not really atoned or taken personal responsiblity for them, and that he does not disclose information to law authorities should be enough to take him down. Heck...maybe Grand Jury his ass and throw him under contempt if he does not dish what he knows. Immunity his ass if he takes the 5th, then contempt if he does not talk.

  10. Hey um...please address lying in auditing. I also want Ensifer to blog on it. I mean, why not just lie when you get sec checked. Or to advance your case faster. Or cause you feel embarressed. LIE!

    anyone ever try that? Good stories?

  11. Re: "Handle the guy"

    I debated letting this comment through. I do not want this thread to go off-topic into "bashing Marty". That was definitely not my intention in writing my post.

    I was commenting, and warning, about the tendency for ex-church Scientologists to adopt, and even embrace, Scientology's abusive cult thought-control techniques. I would rather the thread stay on that topic and not get into personalities. Thanks.

  12. Re: Lying in auditing

    (Off-topic questions like this are better if posted in Ask a Question)

    Most Scientologists are firmly convinced that the E-Meter works, and that it will expose them if they lie. So most Scientologists never lie when on the meter.

    Of course, this isn't true, a fact that some Scientologists have figured out. Those who know this, have no problem lying when necessary.

    But it isn't that simple. You see, most Scientologists believe that, if you are not honest, you will fail to make any progress "up the Bridge" -- so they will always tell the truth in auditing.

    This becomes a problem when the E-Meter reads, but there is nothing there. Often this ends up with the Scientologist making something up just to get out of the session. In this case, they are lying, but feel justified in doing so because "the meter read", so there must be something there.

    It's complicated.

  13. I could see some trolling modalities for lying. Like you act like you are telling the truth but start spinning a story, so that they think you are having evidence of past lives or the next coming of elron (or something else less audacious, but still silly). you run it for a while and then say TADA! fooled ya! hahahaha! wouldn't that be funny?

  14. Re: Trolling modalities

    Ah, well. I have thought about what fun I'd have "in Scientology" but with my current point of view. Of course, I wouldn't last long without getting kicked out, but it could be fun.

  15. Anyone ever try to penetrate it like as a spy?

    Maybe sneak in and find Shelley Miscavage and HEber Jentz?

    With that in mind, do you think those guys are actually being held captive (this actyally kinda ties back to Marty since he has sorta asserted that but never backed it up and Ensifer even called him on it.)

  16. Re: Spy

    You cannot get into the Int. Base at Hemet. People have to be specially vetted and invited before they can enter the property. This is where Heber Jentzsch is -- that's been confirmed by many different sources.

    As for Shelly Miscavige, no one knows for sure where she is, or even if she is still alive.

    As for penetrating into some local Church of Scientology, it's been done and is very boring.

  17. Just Bill, reading about the aging Heber Jentzsh (whose thick spectacles always prompted me to wonder about Hubbard's claim in "Diantetics" that auditing would free a person from the need for glasses) makes me curious about something else: How does the Sea Org plan to care for its lifelong devotees as they become elderly and infirm?

  18. Re: Elderly and infirm

    Oh, they do have a plan. Yes. It goes like this:

    As long as they can still do some work, they can have food and a place to sleep. If they become unable to work or require any medical care, they are dumped on the street with $500.

  19. No pension plan, huh?

  20. No pension plan, but they do get a freeloader bill.

  21. Not to be glib about this, but do any of those who sign Sea Org's billion-year contract (or however long it is) ever ask -- before signing -- about retirement? Surely some of them must have (or recollect) grandparents who are/were incapacitated in their declining years. I know that young people in general tend to skirt the topic of their own mortality, but are those who join Sea Org so blinded by Scientology's promises that they give no thought whatever to the afflictions of old age? Who in Scientology other than David Miscavige and his "celebrity" buddies will be able to afford a lengthy stay in a nursing home? Imagine all those once-mighty operating thetans on welfare and Medicaid!

  22. Re: Sea Org retirement

    If anyone asks a S.O. recruiter about how they handle SO members when they get old, the recruiter would say, "Don't worry, we take care of our own." Lies. They promise full medical care for all members, but that never happens. The promise vacations, but that never happens. Whatever they promise, it doesn't happen.

  23. @Vera Keil

    I want to clarify what I said to you. I do not intend in any way to insult you or disparage your opinion. I have said you certainly could be right about some Scientologists being pathological. That certainly may be more true about the leaders of Scientology. I have no reason to argue with you about that -- I don't have your training.

    The only disagreement I have is if you make a blanket statement that every single Scientologist is pathological. Perhaps I don't understand the term as you use it, but it does seem a bit extreme.

    Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you say "Scientologists are pathological, period". I am always willing to be educated.

  24. Bright Bill. I love your site. I am not a fan of Marty's or anyone else's implementation of "the tech"...LRH stank and for them to pretend none of the terrible policies exist is cracker jacks. Can people really be that naive and that desperate? Sadly, yes. Marty is making his living off of people who still cling to this empty shell of Scn. What a waste of fun in living this life.


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