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.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Ask a Question

Once again, the number of questions on the most recent Ask a Question have gotten unwieldy, so I'll start a new one.

There really are some great questions and discussions in Ask a Question 1, Ask a Question 2 and Ask a Question 3.  I always enjoy going back and reading them.

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.

As always, I love to hear from you.
-

267 comments:

  1. Hello, Just Bill.

    I am just an outside observer following events as they unfold over the internet. I have never been involved with the COS, but I am nevertheless shocked and fascinated by it's totalitarian history. Your blog has been very informative and thank you for writing it.

    Anyway here's my question: How much can you tell me about DM takeover? Most ex-Scientologsts believe DM clawed his way into power by manipulating Hubbard and removing him from power. Others believe that DM succeed Hubbard simply because Hubbard wanted it that way.

    Which side has more evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  2. @python

    When Hubbard died, he left a huge executive structure in charge of the Church of Scientology. This included "Exec Strata", "Watchdog Committee", "CMO" and much more. This structure was filled with reasonably competent personnel. Top executive positions, like "Executive Director International", were filled.

    These people, obviously, were who Hubbard intended to run the church. Most significantly, David Miscavige was not included in any capacity in the leadership of the church.

    All that is well documented.

    Today, Miscavige has removed everyone that Hubbard trusted, trained or assigned to any position in the church. Anyone who tried to remain "loyal to Hubbard" was removed and severely punished. There is no executive structure as Hubbard created it.

    There is no question, it was a very hostile takeover.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Bill,

    I'm in same position as python; and still waiting for my popcorn, by the way.
    As I've read scilons' comments over the last few years, i see that they are capable of pages and pages, indeed whole tomes, of comment; mostly very self-involved ("I was Level 45.6 , and then bogarted an HYC and then I worked for the Whizbang Sector at Flag and then.... " ) The independents do this a lot. They also seem paranoid ( "We have to get rid of DM, people, this is our last chance - The Muggles have taken over everywhere else !" ) I am not exaggerating.
    Does Scientology produce this nutcase attitude, or does it just attract those who already have it? I don't know how old the writers are,of course, but some say they've been in for 20 -odd years and they still sound like teenagers. It sounds to this outsider like scientology is a perfect petri dish for neuroses .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Re: Nutcase

    I'd have to say ... both. I've run into perfectly sane, rational Scientologists and nutcases.

    However, Scientology does create the mindset you are referring to. Actually, your imitation of Scientologists is quite accurate. It is "all about me" -- that is what each Scientologist's goal is "me, as homo novis", "me, as 'OT'".

    They are carefully taught that anyone who isn't "able" or who rejects Scientology is a "degraded being" and not worthy of any help. Even other Scientologists, if they "get into trouble", well, that's their problem.

    And paranoia is part and parcel with the Scientology dogma. Hubbard taught that he, and Scientology, were in an all-out, galaxy-spanning war with "them" -- the Evil ones. Apparently, Miscavige is "them" at the moment.

    Interesting comment about how Scientologists "sound like teenagers". It has been said that a person who enters a cult becomes "frozen" at that age. A person who subsequently leaves the cult starts again at the mental age of when they entered the cult. I've noticed this with people who joined the Sea Org -- especially at a young age -- even if they are 50, they sound and think like a teenager.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Bill,
    It is well known now that children who are traumatized stop emotional development at the age the trauma occurred;this has been observed in cases of everything from sexual abuse to bulimia. That SO members suffer the same doesn't surprise me, but it does make me sick.
    The Hari Krishnas are facing large court suits over the abuse of children left in their boarding schools; is it possible that similar suits could be brought against CoS? I'm sure there are grounds, but would victims do it? Is there a class action suit out there just waiting, like the ones that hit the Catholic Church? That might blow a hole in the facade -

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would love to see a number of class action lawsuits against the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige and any other church leaders who are guilty of the abuse.

    The problem in the past has been the statute of limitations, the long time it has taken people to recover from cult-think and, of course, fear of the church.

    I do expect class action lawsuits, eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, and I know that CoS was successful in repealing first wave of internet attacks. However most of people there where former CoS members themselves. Therefore, CoS knew how to move against them because they had a lot of info on them. Anons don't have central leaders so they are harder to destroy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @python

    Yes, the whole culture of anonymity and impassioned defense of freedom of speech of the Anonymous movement was something the Church of Scientology could not attack and could not defend against.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In his book "Dianetics," Hubbard claimed that auditing would free the nearsighted from their need for eyeglasses. How then could Heber Jentzsch, former president of the Church of Scientology International and the organization's onetime golden boy, explain those thick lenses he always wore?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Re: "Clear" eyesight

    As I explained in The Disappearing States of Clear and OT, when no "Clear" ever demonstrated any of the improvements that Hubbard promised for the state of Clear, Scientology simply redefined Clear to mean nothing at all.

    Typically, Scientologists conveniently "forget" the definition of Clear in Dianetics -- then they never have to explain such things as you mention.

    It is entertaining to listen to Scientologists try to explain how this failure to produce any real Clears and OTs doesn't invalidate Scientology.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hello again, Bill. A couple of questions popped into my head while looking at Marty Rathbun's website. It seems that his "independent" movement is gaining steam. (I don't see any indication that he's pulling in any recruits new to Scientology, just disaffected long-timers... please correct me if I've got that wrong.) While he and Rinder seem much more sane and attached to reality than in their CoS days, they also are still big believers in and promoters of the gospel according to LRH. Hence, my questions: Does "the tech" include the Sea Org? Shall we expect to see Rathbun and Rinder start up their own version of the Sea Org? And does the tech include aggressive "clear the planet" sales campaigns? Do you envision the independents picking up that legacy, as well?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Re: The "tech"

    Technically, everything that Hubbard wrote or said must be carried forward by any true Scientologist. With that in mind, one would expect to see everything re-created by the Independents.

    But, no, I do not expect Independents to create some form of Sea Org and start marching around in uniforms. It's really stupid-looking, and I doubt they could agree on who would be senior to who.

    As for the whole "Clear the planet!" dogma, of course this does and will always be the goal of Scientology. You just might see this crop up in the future as a rallying cry. But it really doesn't mean anything. Since "pure" donations are forbidden by Hubbard, they can't use that goal for raising money -- they could only use it to exhort the faithful to work harder.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello, Bill. I've been reading about various actors who appear in scientology training and promotional films who have "blown," evidently necessitating a re-shoot of the films to erase those apostates from history. As a non-scientologist, I've seen only a very few of these films which have been leaked onto the internet. (The covert-camera version of "Orientation" is one that I have seen.) Could you describe the nature of these training films, and how they've changed between the Hubbard and Miscavige regimes? And do you have any idea why they remain unavailable to the non-CoS public (given thagt pretty much all of the "confidential" texts seem to have been leaked)?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Re: Scientology training films

    There is nothing confidential about any of the Scientology training films.

    The original training films by Hubbard were embarrassingly amateur efforts, with horribly made sets, costumes and no trained actors.

    The more recent films a much better made, including decent sets and, in some cases, professional actors. They are not boring films. They actually have interesting (if strange) stories and settings. If they got out, they'd make for some hilarious viewings.

    All the training films are considered part of a specific course or courses. In true Scientology spirit, you have to have paid in full for the course to see the associated film(s).

    These are not on DVDs. They are on actual film with the soundtrack on a separate CD.

    For these reasons (you must pay and take the associated course and they are not on DVDs) it is virtually impossible for them to be leaked to the Internets.

    With all the Scientology actors who have left, I'm thinking none of the training films are being shown any more.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Bill, Forgive me if you've already answered this before, but do you have any thoughts on what may have happened to Shelly Miscavige? How is it she can just disappear off the face of the earth with no explanation from Scientology to the public world? I mean, does DM really think no one has noticed? Do you think practicing Scino's have noticed, or are they just pretending not to notice so as not to "get in trouble"?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Just Bill,

    Forgive me if you have answered this before, but I'm curious to know what you think has happened to Shelly Miscavige. It's really scary to me that someone can cause a U.S. citizen to disappear without anyone else noticing or doing something about it? Have practicing Scino's really not noticed that she's missing, or do they pretend not to notice so as not to get in trouble with the powers that be?

    Thanks for your time and attention.

    Best,

    Curious Lurker

    ReplyDelete
  17. Re: Shelly Miscavige

    First, I doubt that very many Scientologists know who Shelly Miscavige is. I'd never heard of her until I left Scientology.

    Second, Scientologists "just disappear" all the time -- usually when they've left the church. Nobody asks. It just isn't unusual at all for someone to disappear and never be mentioned again.

    As for how, the church owns well-fortified and very remote properties. Any Sea Org member "assigned" there would never be seen again and be completely under Miscavige's control.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear Bill,
    When has Cruise disassociated himself from CoS? Are any examples available? And, do you think he might become an Independent (I don't see what else he can do, besides confess himself an idiot.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Re: Disassociated

    Check out any Tom Cruise interview from the last year or so. If the interviewer asks him anything about Scientology, he refuses to answer. He claims to still be a true believer but he refuses to be the spokesperson or discuss it in any way.

    It appears that he and David Miscavige are still a pair, so he would not (yet) leave the church.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Speaking of the Sea Org?

    When I first saw the fake Navy uniforms Sea Org members wear, it struck me as really weird and goofy (Esp. as someone who's been in the actual military). How are the Sea Org uniforms viewed by Scientologists? Do they think folks look sharp and professional? Or is it vaguely embarrassing, but no one mentions it?

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Re: Fake Naval uniforms

    Good question. This is something that Scientologists do not talk about. No Scientologist would ever be caught saying anything negative about L. Ron Hubbard's Sea Organization uniforms!

    I can tell you my reaction, and I was in the Sea Org when the full-blown, fake uniforms (with ribbons!) came out. I thought it looked very wacky. Church? Naval Uniforms? WTF?

    Of course I said nothing -- except "Yes sir!"

    Eventually, I was issued an ill-fitting, cheap "uniform". I mostly just wore the pants and shirt, so it didn't look much like a uniform.

    I suspect every Scientologist had a similar reaction when they first saw the uniforms. And, of course, said nothing. I've never met a Scientologist who expressed any positive reaction.

    It is especially true about Hubbard's dictates: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". And Scientologists are universally silent on this subject.

    But, as a Scientologist, you get used to it and, eventually, don't think about it any more.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I was in the Sea Org in the early days -- 1968 and '69. My uniform at AO Los Angeles was a white turtle neck sweater, white mini-skirt and SILVER BOOTS! Oh. my. god.

    As a public scieno (later, after leaving the SO), I thought the fake navy uniforms were very sharp. I never questioned them. The uniforms seemed to give the wearer a lot of authority and power.

    Looking back, not questioning the navy uniforms was simply part and parcel of being a good bubble-head. I'm soooooo happy to be out!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Bill,

    I'm aware of your note over on the left side of this site, that you don't contact people claiming to be Just Bill. While it's not an email, there's now a "Bill" on ESMB that mentions this site. Is it you?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Re: "Bill" over on ESMB

    Yup. That is really me. I also post as "Just Bill" over on OCMB (finally got an account).

    ReplyDelete
  25. Just Bill,

    I would like to ask about Scientology's disconnection policy and how they break apart immediate family members (spouses, parents, siblings). This subject came to mind after watching several videos on YouTube.

    It is difficult for me to understand how (for example) a Scientology husband could abruptly leave his wife of several years merely because she no longer believed in the cult. Or a Scientology mother would disconnect from a son who became a critic. There are numerous sad stories like this.

    Does being a long-term, committed Scientologist weaken the bonds of the family unit? To the point that loyalty to the cult supersedes loyalty to the family?

    Or is it simply that the threats and intimidation used by Scientology to enforce disconnection are so powerful that they overwhelm these families, whose emotional ties to each other are not affected at all by Scientology's teachings?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Re: Disconnection

    Both.

    Yes, Scientology weakens the bonds of family, quite intentionally. When family "interferes" with your ability to donate generously (for instance, you've got savings set-aside for your children's college), Scientology will tell you that you are immortal, you've lived many lifetimes, and your family is a recent, temporary condition of no whole track importance. Your children are only your body's children, your parents are only your body's parents.

    Obviously, if some family member "becomes suppressive", you have even more reason to buy into Scientology's "it's only the body's family" viewpoint.

    And, yes, the threat of denying you "the only road out" and, according to Scientology, condemning you to endless degradation forever, is extremely coercive to a true believer. The Scientologist rationalizes disconnection by saying, "When I'm 'OT', then I'll fix it all up."

    So, it is both the belittlement of family and brutal threats.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hi Bill!

    I think you must ha heard about NDEs (Near Death Experiences). I have read that those who have experienced NDEs sometimes get physic ability. Maybe you could give me some names especially those who got healing ability(healing the blind/deaf/mute, etc. as in the Bible)

    Best wishes:

    Bálint

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Bálint

    Re: Near death experiences

    I'm sorry, but I don't know of anyone who has had such an experience, nor anyone who has the ability to cure the blind, deaf or mute.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thanks for the response regarding the Sea Org uniforms.

    Just a quick following on, what were all the ribbons supposed to signify? Were they classes completed, merit, and so on? And how were they awarded?

    I know Hubbard was in the Navy, so I'm kind of curious about how much of that carried over to his religion design.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Re: Sea Org ribbons

    I was never much up on what those ribbons were all about. Apparently, there are three categories of military style ribbons or bars, specified by L. Ron Hubbard:

    1. Personal achievement. Everybody gets one bar signifying the number of years in the Sea Org. In addition they get different ones for completing most major Scientology courses; for your class of auditor; for getting fully hatted, and so on.

    2. Team Awards. For being a member of a team that successfully completed an important project; for being a member of a successful mission, etc.

    3. Major International Campaign ribbons. These are awarded by International Management, usually to everyone involved. Examples are things like the Portland Crusade, the move from the ship to the Flag Land Base, the release of The Golden Age of Tech, etc.

    The whole idea of the Sea Org, with uniforms, saluting, chain of command and much more, is very much based on the Navy template -- but "redesigned" by Hubbard to be the way he thought it "ought to be".

    I believe Hubbard created his own navy in an attempt to "prove" that he was a good Navy commander, not the inept commander his Navy record now shows him to be.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Just thought I would leave a link showing how Scientology uses politicians yet again

    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3126125.htm

    ReplyDelete
  32. Re: Politicians

    LOL! It is actually very funny. Scientology tricks politicians (who don't know about the church and don't investigate) into showing up. They then use those poor, ignorant politicians in their Press Releases, misquoting them to make it seem the politician approves and recommends Scientology.

    And that not-too-bright politician is then left hemming and hawing about how they don't really know anything and they don't really recommend Scientology.

    Disaster for the politician and disaster for Scientology -- sounds good to me.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dear Bill,

    Does CoS have some sort of hold on the National Inquirer? I was looking thru some old copies in a waiting room (and no, I do not usually read junk, but was bored) and there were articles on Cruise (Katie Holmes Smokes!) Kirsty Allie (Can't cure her weight problem!) and Lisa Presley (Can't cure her weight problem! Depressed over her singing career!) Does the Cos pay them to run this stuff?

    It's ALWAYS mentioned that they're CoS. As celebrities, all these people are has-beens or never-were's. They would not hold the public interest on their own.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Re: National Inquirer

    No. All their "news" stories are definitely not flattering to Scientology. All the ones you mentioned involve problems that the celebrities cannot solve.

    Scientology is supposed to solve every problem a person can have and yet, in these articles, we see Scientology's true believers with continuing serious problems.

    Scientology is definitely not pleased with these stories.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi, Bill. I have read descriptions of Hubbard's stories of Xenu and the galactic confederacy of planets, which seem to offer an account of how the current troubles that beset humans got that way. What I don't understand is whether Hubbard's writings offer a story of the origin of the universe. How far back does he go? Is existence eternal, god-produced, an illusion of some kind, or what?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Re: Does Hubbard explain the origin of the universe?

    Yes, he does. He dates the origin at around 4 trillion years ago. Before that time all the thetans (souls) were happy people. They had their own, private universes. Think of them as sandboxes or art projects. They created things, destroyed things and generally had a good time in their private spaces.

    Then, an evil person (or maybe several) created the physical universe as a trap. These evil people then invaded and absorbed all the happy thetans' personal universes, destroying each and including their rubble into the physical universe.

    Because this was very confusing to all the now-unhappy thetans, they couldn't figure out how to escape. And so it went, getting more confused, down to today.

    Hubbard promised that he could get everyone out, but everyone had to be enlightened by Scientology before anyone could leave.

    This is the big, ultimate goal of Scientology.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks for that reply about the origin of the universe. It raises more questions: was this evil being (or beings) just another thetan, or some different category of creature? Are we, today, all trapped thetans, or are some decendents of the evil trappers around? And is there a creation myth that goes further back, to account for the happy thetans that existed before the universe (i.e., where did they come from?) This is fascinating, thanks so much.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Re: Origin of the universe

    The evil one(s) were just other thetans. Hubbard doesn't explain why they were evil.

    About origins before the physical universe? Hubbard didn't say. He claimed to know of "at least" nine universes outside of this one -- but never provided any details.

    ReplyDelete
  39. At the risk of being pedantic,Incident One occurred four quadrillion years ago. And let's not forget the evil psychs, who showed up soon after to implant the thetans with evil purposes...beautiful, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Oh, yes! How could I forget such an important date. Four quadrillion years ago! Thanks.

    And no one should forget the Evil Psychs.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @ Bill

    I would like to ask about Scientology's view of the so-called MEST universe and clearing other planets.

    I have read on other websites that supposedly a Scientologist views their human body as rather unimportant. That the goal is to be free of it, become some type of a Homo novis spirit and 'clear' the planet Earth. Once this has been accomplished, the spirit can travel to other planets and 'clear' them too. If necessary, the spirit can borrow another body at will to achieve this goal. Trivial things like love of family, friends and enjoying life on Earth are for the lowly Homo sapiens, or wogs. The Homo novis has more important tasks to do.

    Is the scenario I just described accurate? If so, is it something that all Scientologists MUST accept? IMO, it comes across as an extremely depressing and weird way to view a person's existence. When I read such tales, I think to myself...”Nah, surely not all Scientologists believe that. It is too wild.”

    ReplyDelete
  42. @The good old dog

    Re: MEST universe

    What you describe is quite accurate. This is the scenario that Hubbard laid out for Scientologists: Become OT, become free of the body and then, if you wanted to help him Clear other planets -- until the whole universe was Clear. At which point we will finally be able to leave this universe and go do something else.

    However, in the less zealot mode, Hubbard was all for enjoying life, having a family and good friends, even becoming rich and having things. He called it "havingness".

    It all depended in what mood Hubbard was in at the time.

    That's one of the things that made Scientology attractive, you could pretend that its goals were whatever you wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @ Bill

    I would like to ask a follow-up to my last question.

    Are the leaving-the-body and planetary travel stories taught to Scientologists at the early stages of their indoctrination? Or is it kept secret until they reach the OT levels, like the Xenu story?

    ReplyDelete
  44. @The good old dog

    Oh, the "OT phenomena" stories are disseminated very early. This is part of the tricks to make Scientologists believe that "OT" really is possible, and keeps them working on that goal no matter how few their own, personal gains are.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Bill, based on your experience, how do you think the recent New Yorker piece on Paul Haggis is being felt by church members and staff? Does anybody dare mention it to anybody else? The fact that this a pulitzer prize winning author published by the New Yorker, which is famous for scrupulous fact checking, gives this article added credibility in the "wog" world... is that credibility likely to mean something to those who are "in"?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Re: Effect on Scientologists

    I think Lawrence Wright called it correctly. True believers, still in the church, are very skilled in rejecting all "entheta" (negative information). They may be aware of it, but they won't read it and, even if they read some, they won't believe it.

    Trust me, the cult-conditioning and the self-thought-control mechanism it really quite effective.

    Look at how the celebrity Scientologists reacted to Haggis' direct and personal conversations! They didn't believe him and wouldn't look for themselves.

    This will have little effect on Scientologists -- unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Here is a link to the New Yorker article "Paul Haggis Vs. the Church of Scientology."

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all

    ReplyDelete
  48. Bil, here's a question that occurred to me while reading the New Yorker article. The piece describes Josh Brolin's account of John Travolta laying hands on an injured Marlon Brando at a party, and Brando reporting he felt better as a result. I assume this would have been a "touch assist". Travolta's spokesperson dismisses the account as "pure fabrication." Why would Travolta's handlers want to deny what sounds like great PR for Scientology: celeb uses "the tech" to cure another celeb?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Re: Touch assist

    You know, that didn't make sense to me either. As you say, you'd think it would be good Scientology PR.

    The only thing I can think of is Scientology, and Scientologists, just deny everything. It's become a habit and standard procedure: "We didn't do that. He didn't do that. It is a lie."

    ReplyDelete
  50. RE: Travolta's denial

    Is it possible that Travolta's personal handlers (he was speaking through a lawyer) want to distance Travolta form anything that seems weird to the general public, even if it seems great to Scientologists?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Re: Travolta's denial

    Hmmm. That is quite possible. If you look at when he does associate himself with "Scientology", it seems to be only the Volunteer Ministers in Haiti. Not that that worked out too well either.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Just Hi Bill!

    I have an off topic question. Do you know something called The Happiness Matrix? Its like a documentary which I suspect it will become some kind of New Age movement. I've been looking for independent information from the official website but i didn't find anything. I ask you because the manufacture of the trailer is very similar to the Scientology adversiting and if Scientology is behind this, I think you could detect it. Because you are versed in the topic and your point of view is trustable.

    Thank you very much and the best regards.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Re: The Happiness Matrix

    No, not Scientology related. I doubt there is any Scientology influence in it -- though I haven't studied The Happiness Matrix.

    Apparently, this stuff is coming from the business world -- and, trust me, Scientology has an abysmal reputation in the business world. Where a Scientologist has attempted to implement Scientology's "Admin Tech" in a real world business, it has been a complete disaster. (See this story)

    ReplyDelete
  54. alright bill, here's the big, real question: someday it might happen as we all hope, in a manner befitting its own screen treatment, and you yourself bill will turn on the television as you always do, probably absent of any thought or intention, maybe just to surf or see whats on, and there it will be, a birds-eye helicopter shot of gold base with trains of fbi vehicles hauling in and out.........so the question is bill, if this is the particular scenario to unfold, and it seems ever so close in its unfolding, what champagne do you have chilling right now in your fridge?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Re: Champagne

    LOL! I'm with you on the celebration, but I'm more the good, local beer type of person. And I'm ready to crack one open for the celebration. It will be wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I've never been involved in the COS, but I did live in Clearwater during grade school (early to late 1980's). I just wanted to offer a little outsider perspective of the church then. We used to drive past the Ft. Harrison Hotel on the way to and from my Grandmother's house at least once a week. I always remembered the Scientologists wearing uniforms consisting of pants for men, skirts for women (can't remember if khaki or dark blue/black), a white button down shirt, with women wearing a scarf around their neck and the men with a tie of the same pattern as the women's scarf. They were very easy to identify, and you always saw them walking around. It was common knowledge that they did not talk to anyone outside the church. Even then, they were strongly viewed as a cult, and being before the age of the Internet, not much was known about them. They did have a general negative aspect to them and I'd be surprised if they got many locals to join. I'm sure that there were people who were ripe for being taken advantage of (addictions, death in families, etc.), but overall they were not viewed favorably and I can't imagine many people just walking in and getting involved.

    Just last year, I was at a Tampa Bay Buccaneers game in Tampa, and they were handing out "Psychiatry an Industry of Death" DVDs after the game. The DVDs don't say "Scientology" ANYWHERE on the packaging, just that it's presented by The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) and asks you to go to www.cchr.org/documentary for more info. By the by, there's an order for if you'd like to get more copies, starting at $15.00 a DVD. I found my copy on the ground outside the stadium (where it belonged), but once I realized what it was, picked it up out of morbid curiosity. Haven't gotten around to watching it yet, though.

    A final note from an outsider: I can easily see how the COS gets people to disconnect from family and friends. It seems that families are split up to make allegiance the church stronger than family ties. Hearing Jenna Miscavige say that she only saw her mother once for 30 minutes from the age of 12-16 and her father for 3 30 minutes in that same time illustrate this point. If you are told someone you've rarely seen is an SP, you'd be more inclined to stay in the life you know than to defect to be with someone who by that point is a stranger to you. Seems the same for married couples that are kept apart as well. Tom De Vocht says that in his 19 year marriage, he maybe spent a total of 4 years with his wife. It seems that isolation from loved ones is a part of the church's tools in getting people more dependent on it.

    I'm so glad that more information is getting out on the COS. It's always been a mystery to me, and the more I find out, the more awful it seems. Knowledge is power, and hopefully the COS's numbers will continue to decline. I've always been a little angry at how celebs taught the church, knowing full well (even before the onslaught on info on the web) that they are treated far differently than the average person joining. I always thought it was misleading, and now that is starting to come out, too.

    I have nothing against the tech if it helps people, but the abuse of power by the leadership is really unacceptable. I guess in that way, I support the Freezone movement and think that's the only way the COS will survive into the next decades (if at all).

    ReplyDelete
  57. I just sent a comment about growing up in Clearwater in the '80's. I'll be going back there in a month or two (family lives there and I'm a few hours drive away). I'd love to walk around downtown Clearwater next time I'm there and see how the Super Power building looks. If I see anything worth mentioning, I'll post again, then!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Speaking of Travolta, has much been made of the police report filed after his son's death? In it, he does say that his son was autistic, which is a no no for Scientology! I think this might be another sign that he is distancing himself from the COS.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I was just reading my comment above, and meant to say celebrities "tout" the church, not "taught". Wish I could edit that! Sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Re: Clearwater

    Thank you for your great exterior viewpoint on Scientology's presence in Clearwater. It's wonderful to get that viewpoint.

    Don't worry about a minor misspelling, if we cared about spelling, the Internet would come to a grinding halt.

    I look forward to your update on Clearwater today.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Bill, I realize I'm calling for speculation here, but I'm wondering why, do you think, we haven't yet seen a "Freedom magazine" countering the New Yorker article? I seem to recall that they were very quick on the draw (and obviously prepared in advance) with BBC Panorama, Anderson Cooper and the SP Times; those "Freedom's" were out immediately after the offending publication or broadcast.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Re: Freedom Rag

    Good question, but I don't know the answer. I actually figured they'd done that, but I see they haven't. They don't even mention the New Yorker once.

    Strange. Usually they'd have spewed their silly insults and insinuations all over the place.

    Your guess is as good as mine.

    ReplyDelete
  63. From that New Yorker article: there's an anecdote about Tommy Davis being sent to scrub dumpsters in the Estates Project Force after some Tom Cruise-related bungle. Why would he be assigned the EPF, not the RPF? I thought the EPF was for new Sea Org trainees, have I got that wrong?.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Re: Tommy Davis and the RPF

    According to rumor, Tommy was assigned to the RPF at one time, but was "pardoned" rather shortly. Whether this was because of his mother, Anne Archer, or because Miscavige didn't have anybody else to speak for him that he trusted, I have no data.

    Ever since then, he seems to be safe from the RPF.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Bill, have you heard anything about the current status of Heber Jentsch? I heard about a push to "free Heber," then. nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Re: Free Heber

    Nope. I've heard nothing. It's very sad, not just Heber, but all of the people who are held in such degraded conditions. I don't know why this campaign was totally dropped but I suspect that there were specific reasons for targeting Heber only, and those reasons are no longer important.

    I would like to see more attention on all of those held in Scientology's "re-education" camps -- and that, at least, does seem to be happening.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Is there a foolproof way to get Scios to stop calling? I feel beseiged when they call day and night and won't stop.

    I got them to stop "visiting" in uniform by telling them they were scaring away my clients and I'd sue them. Or, at least, they stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Re: Scientology phone calls.

    Apparently my old method no longer works with the new, very desperate church.

    Now, I was a "good Scientologist" and wanted to stay in good standing at that time. I stopped giving them money and told them it would be "at least six months" before I might have some available - business being what it was. Then, months later I'd tell them the same. No money meant very few phone calls.

    But I guess they are more desperate these days - that might not work.

    If you don't want to be "declared suppressive", it's more of a problem walking that tightrope -- but never, ever give them a single dime -- that's the way to ensure you don't end up on their "hot list". Also, never engage in any conversation with them. Make it very short, "Gee, I'm doing all I can to make my business viable, no money available right now, sorry I'm really busy, got to run>CLICK<".

    Even if they are desperate, this can't help but discourage them from calling.

    Of course, if you don't care about being declared Suppressive, well, I'd have a long and interesting conversation until they hung up. And I doubt they'd call ever again.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Hi Bill,

    A mildly amusing question for you: since CoS is the only religion I've ever heard of that has a machine as a "religious artifact" ( sounds like an oxymoron right there) and if being a member depends entirely on at least some access to E-meters, is it even possible to be a member without them? If there was no electricity, how could the CoS exist? If the grid went down, would the church collapse?

    Eagerly awaiting your next post, on whatever,

    Sheepherder

    ReplyDelete
  70. Re: Emeter and the church

    LOL! As long as banks continued to function, the Church of Scientology would be happy...

    But seriously, without the "magic" emeter Scientology could not continue. However, we assume you could recharge an emeter from solar or some such, so that's probably not a problem.

    It is the "magic" emeter that tells Scientologists "It's all true!"

    If, for some reason, an emeter wasn't available, they would be lost -- they'd have to decide for themselves what is true or not, and that isn't something they have much experience with.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Dear Bill,

    World news is so exciting now that I come here to calm down. Another purely academic question for you; A comment over on "Leaving Scientology" made the interesting point that, without LRH to produce new policy, the collapse of scientology - and not just the Church Of - is inevitable. Now, LRH was a clever clever man; why didn't he plan for that? Did he A) not care what happened after he was gone B) think he was immortal C) ) become so addled he could no longer plan anything, or what?
    And for those Indies who still think he was God; if he was so damn smart why didn't he see the weakness in his own system back when his brain was still working? (I won't add, if DM is such an SP why didn't the old boy spot him - that horse has been run into the ground. Tho an Indie rebuttal might be amusing.)

    Still enjoying the show,
    Sheepherder

    ReplyDelete
  72. @Sheepherder

    I do enjoy the questions here very much.

    There is no evidence that LRH cared one tiny bit about the future of Scientology. He made no plans. As the world changed and it became obvious that his policies were no longer applicable (the coming of the Internet, for instance), he made no adjustments to ensure Scientology changed with the times. He wrote no policies about how things should be handled when he "dropped the body". He wrote and said nothing about the future of Scientology without him.

    I not only think he didn't care what happened after he died, I think (D) LRH was truly scared to even consider his own death.

    From the various stories about his last days, it appears that he was frantically auditing, hour after hour. In the end, I think he believed his own claims and was desperately trying to attain "immortality" before his body quit on him. But that's just a feeling I have, who knows what went on in his head?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Dear Bill:
    I once met Diana Hubbard Horwich when she visited Mexico. Did she were on next to nothing allowance?
    And what about Mike Napier?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Re: Diana Hubbard Horwich

    Diana is the only one of Ron's children who is still in Scientology. The others have all left. Diana is still in the Sea Org, but has been demoted and demoted and degraded by David Miscavige. Yes, you can be assured that she is currently existing on the standard next-to-nothing allowance of a lowly Sea Org grunt.

    I have no information about Mike Napier.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Speaking of Hubbard's family? What do Scientologists think about the fact Hubbard's personal and family life appeared to be a total wreck?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Re: Ron's personal and family life

    Scientologists did not, in any way, know about much of Ron's personal and family life, except what Ron spoke about. Ron's two earlier marriages were only spoken about vaguely. Ron junior was known about, but like all negative information, his existence was simply ignored.

    What is now known by everyone (except church members) about Ron's private life and his families, was not known in earlier times.

    Current Scientologists treat this information as they treat all "negative" information, they ignore it and simply pretend it doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @ Bill

    I have a question about thetans and Scientology's reincarnation beliefs.

    As best I can make out, Hubbard said that a thetan traveled to the planet Venus after the host body died. Once on the planet Venus, the thetan is brainwashed and lied to by the inhabitants there, put in a capsule and eventually dumped off the coast of California. The thetan escapes, floats around the world looking for a woman who will hopefully have a child soon. After the newborn arrives, the thetan picks that body to inhabit. And the cycle repeats itself.

    Does Scientology dogma believe that wogs, or non-Scientologists, also have thetans? If so, do they further believe that wogs go thru the same stages of re-incarnation as Scientologists?

    ReplyDelete
  78. @The good old dog

    That isn't quite the dogma, according to Hubbard. Here's what I picked up from my years listening to Hubbard's lectures.

    Everyone is a thetan. Scientologist or wog, everyone is a thetan, inhabiting a body. As part of arriving on this planet, almost all the people here (the thetans), have been programmed to "report to the implant station" when they die.

    When and where did this programming occur? Primarily, that was the "Xenu" incident, 75 million years ago.

    So, when anyone dies, they immediately "report to the implant station" for a refresh of their programming.

    Hubbard claimed that there were implant stations on the far side of the moon and on Mars. I don't recall him ever saying Venus had an implant station (just trains, apparently).

    The implant stations are all automatic, no people there. The thetans receive a refresh of their programming ("implanting") and then are given orders to "go pick up a new body on Earth".

    So they do. No capsules, the thetan just goes to Earth and picks up a body. Not necessarily California, the thetan goes wherever they can find a new body.

    Exactly when they inhabit the baby body is not set. They might inhabit the body before or after birth, but they will hover nearby in any case. Thetans will fight each other for a body, since there are more thetans than bodies.

    Some thetans will take an adult body that is in a coma or has been seriously injured which, Hubbard said, explained amnesia and drastic personality changes at those times.

    That's the dogma, according to Hubbard, as near as I can recall. I may have missed a few minor details.

    By the way, Hubbard got quite upset if you called this cycle "reincarnation" since, in his version, the birth-death-rebirth cycle is not tied to spiritual progress towards Nirvana. In his version, it's all a horrible trap that leads, in a dwindling spiral, down to total degradation. It is a Bad Thing that "Scientology can help you with".

    ReplyDelete
  79. Hi-I enjoy your blog, and appreciate what you're doing!

    One suggestion for you, the value of which you will discern readily enough:

    James "the Amazing" Randi has a $1,000,000 prize offered to anyone who can prove a claim of supernatural powers.

    http://www.randi.org/research/

    I made the suggestion to Marty Rathbun that the Independent movement should put forth a "Real Live OT" to take the Randi up on his challenge. Certainly, since an OT is able to "exteriorize", it should be child's play to be able to discern random letters, for instance, that would be displayed outside of the OT's view.

    The advantage, I argued, would be that not only would he be able to add $1,000,000 to the Independent Movement's coffers (which could be used to help ex SO get their lives together, for instance), but it would also demonstrate the validity of the "Tech" for the world to see. This would, no doubt, cause the stats for Independent Scientology to go "Straight up and Vertical", and of course cause a flood *out* of DM's CoS.

    So, you can imagine my surprise when my serious and helpful suggestion was rejected. (OK, maybe not that serious, and I wasn't that surprised, but I *did* think it would help Marty and company pull their heads out of their asses)

    In fact, not only was it rejected, but I was immediately accused of being OSA. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and it was concluded that OSA was not that smart.

    Thus, it was patently obvious that I must be a governmental agent who was trying to destroy Scientology. (I'm still scratching my head about that one, but then again I haven't gone "clear", so I haven't enjoyed the IQ-raising benefits of having LRH invalidate my ability to reason...)

    My subsequent posts in Marty's blog were not approved...

    In short, their reaction could be fairly described as "Dysentarial".

    So, the comments section in Marty's blog is a lot of TL/DR. It's a shame, as I think maybe a couple dozen read it, at most.

    I thought this stratagem was too effective not to share, and I encourage you to spread it as far and wide as your heart desires.

    Good luck!

    Mr. Fancy

    ReplyDelete
  80. @Mr. Fancy (OSA agent and government provocateur)

    A wonderful idea! I've often wondered why Scientology holds all its powerful OTs back from raining vengeance down upon all the Suppressives and doubters.

    As you point out, it would immediately make Scientology's "Bridge to OT" the most sought after service in the world.

    I'm sure all those powerful OTs are frustrated at being forbidden from exercising any of their powers to help Scientology.

    Let's campaign to free all those powerful OTs from those restrictions so that they can use their powers for good!

    As you pointed out, there's a million dollars out there just waiting to be claimed.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Bill, of all the celebrity endorsements Scientology, the most bizarre one is surely the support for Scientology as an effective method to "civilize white people," touted recently by Louis Farrakhan. I realize that Farrakhan's beliefs have an outer-space aspect, but, still... do you have any clue how or why Farrakhan is connected to Scientology?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Re: Farrakhan and Dianetics

    I also must admit to considerable surprise when I heard of Louis Farrakhan's embrace of Scientology (which he tries to pretend is only "Dianetics").

    Perhaps it is the similarities. Both are very small religions and both are losing members. Both believe in UFOs. Both have had difficulties with their images -- which has only gotten worse over time.

    However, Farrakhan's conversion to Scientology is only going to upset and ultimately alienate his followers. L. Ron Hubbard's blatant racism and Scientology's greed and total lack of results only makes Farrakhan look foolish and gullible -- and his followers will not appreciate being made fools of.

    On the other side, while Scientology will see an important boost in membership -- and, more importantly to David Miscavige, more money, it won't last long and has only served to highlight Hubbard's racism and Scientology's total failures.

    So why did Farrakhan convert to Scientology? I'm guessing someone he trusted worked on him for years, feeding him all the false claims and bogus "success stories" of Scientology. He was, undoubtedly, "audited" secretly, with an emeter so he would experience that temporary euphoria that works so well in trapping people.

    It looks like Louis Farrakhan wants to "go OT" and he thinks that handing over all his followers to the Church of Scientology will help him get there.

    In the end, he will end up as all Scientology true believers do, penniless and still not OT. His followers will, for the most part, abandon him to his fate.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Well, I for one am just shocked at Mr. Fancy the agent provocateur. How naughty of him, and I needed a good laugh this morning. "...concluded that OSA is not that smart"?! Whoohoo!

    Bill, talk some trash for us: you said a while back that DM hates Travolta; can you tell us why? Everyone who has known Travolta says he's a nice guy; ToryMagoo (who I believe audited him) called him a "sweetheart". He projects such a likeable, rather sweet goofy persona that it is impossible for him to play villains - maybe one of the MYRIAD reasons that "Battlefield Earth" was such a remarkable piece of work - so why, aside from losing CoS millions over a movie so bad it's BAD, would Dm personally hate him?

    Sheepherder

    ReplyDelete
  84. P.S. Is Fancy's suggestion and the dysentarial replies available to be read?
    I long to know all!

    Sheepherder

    ReplyDelete
  85. Re: Miscavige hates Travolta

    It would be pure speculation on my part as to why ... but I do love to speculate.

    First, of course, David Miscavige hates just about everyone. "They" are all suppressive persons. He especially hates anyone who appears to see Miscavige for what he is -- a greedy, insane, power-mad sociopath.

    And I think John Travolta is very well aware of exactly what Miscavige is. After all, he witnessed a ton of Miscavige's insanity while filming Battlefield Earth. That movie was micro-managed by Miscavige -- micromanaged to total destruction. Given that John has been in many good movies, he would know the difference. This was to be Travolta's gift to Hubbard -- albeit posthumously -- and Miscavige destroyed it, and then blamed it all on Travolta. If it had been left solely up to Travolta, it might have turned out OK -- at least it would have turned out much better than it did.

    I can't see Travolta looking at Miscavige with anything but disgust.

    Compare that to the adoration in Tom Cruise's eyes when he looks at Miscavige.

    Miscavige hates Travolta for the most obvious reason, Travolta sees Miscavige for exactly what he is, and Miscavige hates that.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Re: Dysentarial replies to Mr. Fancy's suggestion

    Up to Mr. Fancy. Is all this posted anywhere?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Reading tons last few weeks and now looked at Steve Fishman's stuff including You Tube interviews.

    So the question is there anything real about the man and did he give money to Scientology per their request. Still a bit confused.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Re: Steve Fishman

    Wow, that's a rabbit hole I do not wish to go down. "Is there anything real about the man"? It really appears that he was ... confused ... about much of what he claimed. All the conspiracies involving the Church of Scientology certainly could have been true. Certainly the church has done some pretty strange things to defend itself, but there was no solid evidence.

    I don't know anything about the church's demand for money, nor Fishman ever paying anything.

    I'm pretty sure I wouldn't look to that particular case for any hard facts.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Hi Bill! How's it going?

    Bill, I've heard from some scientologists that is pointless to criticize Scientology without having readed the 1500 books that Hubbard wrote. My questions are:

    1)Did Hubbard really wrote 1500 books? And if that is the case,

    2)Must every scientologist read them all?

    That's all Bill, thank you very much for everything and have a great day.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Re: 1500 books

    No. Hubbard did not write 1500 books. Even if you include his science fiction/adventure books he didn't write nearly that many.

    I don't know the exact count of Scientology books he wrote since some have disappeared or been issued under different names, but the number is less than 50.

    It is absurd for Scientologists to claim that all criticism is invalid unless one has read all (or even most) of Hubbard's works.

    And, even more to the point, criticising the crimes, abuse, fraud and lies of the Church of Scientology does not require one to have read all of Hubbard's works.

    If a Scientologist insists that one cannot bring up the church's crimes, lies, abuse and fraud if one hasn't studied Scientology, then they are actually saying that those abuses are part of Scientology dogma. I don't think they want to be saying that.

    On the other hand, I hate it when someone criticises the Scientology belief system based solely on rumors and false information -- and there is a lot of that around. If someone wishes to critique the Scientology belief system then, yes, they should study it first. I am not recommending studying Scientology, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  91. @ Bill

    I have some questions regarding CoS's controversial Purification Rundown program.

    According to your February 25, 2010 blog posting, the Purification Rundown is required for all Scientologists. This puzzled me at first because I thought the program was only intended for members with a past history of drug abuse. But upon further research it appears to be promoted within the cult as a 'religious' procedure, necessary for a Scientologist's spiritual growth. The anti-drug, non-spiritual aspect of the Purification Rundown is emphasized by Scientology front-groups like Narconon and Criminon. Do I have that correct?

    Also, how many times does a Scientologist HAVE to enroll in the Purification Rundown? And finally, is it used by the Independent Scientology movement?

    ReplyDelete
  92. @The good old dog

    Re: Purification Rundown

    You indeed have that right. According to Scientology, the Purification Rundown is not just for getting rid of drugs, but also for any and all toxins. Therefore, it is required for all Scientologists.

    As you noted, it is "spiritual" when done by Scientologists, but "non-spiritual" when done as part of Narconon and Criminon. Once again, Scientology wants to have their cake and eat it too.

    The truth is that it is neither. Since the church's own tests apparently failed to prove any removal of toxins, or even that toxins are stored in the body as Hubbard claimed, it really is just another money-making scam.

    Scientologists often re-do the Purification Rundown. There is no limit to the number of times they can be required to do the rundown -- paying in full each time. Three or more times through is not uncommon. One would think that, after the second or third time, they'd twig on the fact that it isn't effective.

    I am quite sure the independents use the Purification Rundown as well. It is part of the dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Bill,

    If you were approached by a young SO who had just blown, especially one who'd spent most of his life in or onlines or whatever they call it, what would you want to tell him?

    Just wondering.

    Sheepherder

    ReplyDelete
  94. I can answer the question on this thread about the books:

    I DID read Dianetics cover to cover and all the other books by Hubbard, including ones they were no longer pushing because they contained material they wanted to charge for. I did not read his science fiction because literature is a particular love of mine and his prose is the worst kind of crap.

    Hubbard found two hooks to hang is con on, and these are:

    1) the world is insane--nothing we try to do to improve life ever seems to work for all or for long

    2) the problem is not conscious--it is below consciousness and unavailable to us without some kind of process or effort

    Since he was correct about these two things, many sensitive, intelligent, not particularly sophisticated people gave him their attention. But if I had studied philosophy as deeply and broadly as I had other subjects, I would have been to a large degree immunized against his facile answers to human dilemnas.

    I can evaluate his books:

    They are one part imaginiation, the copious inventiveness of a con man and writer, someone who can spin b.s. forever.

    They are one part knowledge of human nature--the need people have to escape existential angst, the need to belong, etc.

    The other two parts are all the metaphysics he absorbed and regurgitated in his own particular form, including material from hermeticism, the bhavagad gita (lifted straight out as I discovered when attending a sanskrit/english gita study group), buddhism, etc. He put in the usual religious trapdoor--you see, if you know the truth that will set humanity free, then you MUST put that first above all and devote your life to spreading the message or you are....a monster. What else could you be? You are the most damned if you know the truth and don't live it, share it, give your life for it.

    That's the content of his books and the CoS.
    Now I've saved those of you who don't like to read the trouble. Not to sound like Charlie Sheen here, but Scientology couldn't trap me because I'm an excellent student and I can't help but analyze and synthesize complicated or dense material very easily. In other ways, I'm as ignorant, gullible and vulnerable as any human anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Thanks to this Anonymous (we are legion, aren't we.) Excellent analysis, enjoyed it. Am pleased to see that, without having read any of Hubbard's books, this is pretty much what I'd guessed. I knew he plagiarized - indeed, he could only be expected to - and that he was a bombastic, Marvel Comics sort of author. I dislike science fiction so would have been safe from him on that score; I also am pretty good at lit. crit. ; lousy style affects me like nails on a chalkboard.

    But vulnerability is a huge issue. When a foolish college student, I was invited to join a small religious group that could well have been a cult. What saved me was a) the style of it; a different religion, I might have bit; b) a profound attachment to home and family and strong sense of family identity c) being in love at the time.

    I never encountered any CoS but the space opera and 'technology' would have repelled me. Not to mention Hubbard's face and expression. Does anyone besides me think he looked like a sinister clown right out of Stephen King?

    It would be interesting to me to learn of other reasons that protected others when they were vulnerable.

    ReplyDelete
  96. @ Bill

    In your March 11 blog posting you wrote....”In Scientology, asking for proof of anything Hubbard said or anything the church claims is a punishable act.  If you insist on seeing proof, you are a suppressive person!”

    Apart from being declared an SP (which I would assume is the harshest disciplinary action), what other types of punishment are dealt to Scientologists (true believers) who dispute Hubbard?

    Also, to your knowledge, has a Scientology celebrity ever been punished for questioning Scientology dogma?

    ReplyDelete
  97. @The good old dog

    Re: Punishments

    Scientologists who stray from the approved path will be sent to Ethics. There, the mildest punishment would be a "Ethics condition". They might start out at "Liability", or it could be lower -- "Doubt", "Enemy", "Treason" or "Confusion". The more the Scientologist resists "correction", the lower the condition and the harsher the penalties, culminating in a Suppressive Person declare, loss of all certificates and disconnection from all Scientologists.

    Another "punishment", outside of Ethics, is simply to assign the Scientologist to many, many hours of "Sec Checks" looking for crimes, bad thoughts and such. This can be very gruelling, especially when no crimes exist (since they must find crimes). This is usually done when a Scientologist has done nothing wrong, but has angered some higher up. Many people who have left the Sea Org, even when "back in good standing", end up on this list.

    This can cost many thousands and, effectively, stalls the person's progress "up the Bridge", often permanently. Scientologists hate this and will do everything to look like a perfectly obedient Scientologist to avoid it. That, however, might not be good enough, depending on who they angered.

    ReplyDelete
  98. @The good old dog

    Re: Celebrities and punishments

    All Celebrities are handled very, very carefully so as not to upset them or alienate them. Since it is part of Scientology, I'm sure they will "do conditions", but in a much different way than regular Scientologists. You will not find celebrities going around the "org" asking for signatures on their Liability Formulas. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  99. Speaking of punishments, Just Bill, I told the CoS stalker/caller off on the phone a few weeks ago, and today a "statement" arrived from the org saying that I owe them around 700 dollars.

    I haven't had a service in 17 years and the last "statement" I got from them a few years ago was that I had about 5,000 credit--this turned out to be bogus, of course.

    Are these statements, either of credit or that you owe money, just a scam to get people to call the church? Or am I now being fair-gamed?

    Should I get a lawyer?--that's my instinct, since if I'm being fair-gamed I guess there are no lengths they won't go to to "ruin" my life.

    Last question: how can anyone doubt this is an evil organization?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Re: Owe $700

    Don't worry, you owe them nothing. The statement is illegal. They won't come after you, in any legal way, because it is a scam.

    Since every service is "pay in advance", I'd assume you got a "freeloader debt" invoice. Major scam.

    In any case, ignore it. If they start to harass you, then look for a lawyer to get them to stop.

    By the way, unless you are being instrumental in exposing their crimes, they are not going to "fair game" you. Don't worry.

    Re: Evil organization

    They hide it well. If it hadn't been for the Internet, no one would know how evil they are. They are very, very good at lying.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Thanks for the swift reply, Just Bill.

    Thing is, on the phone after I tried telling the young woman that she was being deluded by a religious con game and exactly how it worked, I got angry and told her I was not just a non-believer, but someone who wanted Scientology exposed and posted on the net to that effect.
    So, I declared myself an enemy, even though I haven't written a book or gone on t.V.

    I have property and I'm afraid they might go after it on the basis of the bogus invoice. Of course, they can easily get people to lie and say I was at an org, etc. That would be nothing to a member of the G.O., as you and I well know.

    I'm going to the police to file a report based on the 'coincidence' of the phone call and this statement. That way it will be on record.
    Better safe than sorry.

    BTW, I used to be a tremendous wimp but the process of confronting some real b*st*rds has made me realize it is better to be attacked by sociopaths than to live in fear of them. I feel supported by all my compadres on the net and thus have the morale to be glad I told the CoS off!

    But I'm such a small-fry, maybe I'm over-reacting. Any advise is welcome. Anyone else been invoiced for non-existent (not just non-effective, ha,ha) services?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Re: Fair game

    Think of all this in context. The Church of Scientology has never before been facing so much exposure of its crimes, lies, abuse and fraud. There are, literally, thousands of very active critics and whistle-blowers.

    At the same time, Scientologists and staff are leaving the church. The church income has crashed.

    A lot less money, much fewer staff and a lot more critics and whistle-blowers. They just can't go after someone like you who just got angry. Do not worry.

    Reporting any of the church's illegal actions to the police is still a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Not sure how to ask a new question so I'll post here...I live very close to where the new Church of Scientology Headquarters is going to be located in Hockley Valley, ON., Canada. Should I be worried? There’s a local radio guy doing an interview with Yvette Shank (Canadian Church of Scientology President) this Saturday about this topic and then he’s holding a phone-in session after the interview. I would love it if some of you with experience in the Church could call in and share your thougths. You can listen online between 1-5 pm here http://www.drewmarshall.ca/ . Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Re: Hockley Valley

    I've seen the "mockups" of what Scientology is proposing. This will cost Canadian Scientologists many, many millions. The chance of the few remaining Scientologists in Canada coming up with all the money this will required is between zero and nil.

    Even if they came up with the money, the project would take many years -- and all the time Scientology will continue to collapse. If it were ever completed (an unlikely event), there would be no one left to go there.

    In my opinion, this announcement has two purposes. First, Miscavige uses these announcements to "prove" (to both Scientologists and the outside world) that "Scientology is expanding".

    Second, Miscavige is actually targeting the few millionaire Scientologists in Canada who still have some millions left. This whole bogus "announcement" is designed specifically to con these millionaires out of their last few millions.

    Once Miscavige has that, no further work or announcements regarding "Hockley Valley" will happen. It's just a con.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Bill

    What are your thoughts regarding Neil Gaiman, another writer who is also scilon. I've read some stuff saying that his parents where big in their old days. And not as victims but as perpetrators - they got a lot of money supplying Co$ with some herbal remedies or something like that, I forgot the details.

    I honestly don't find Gaiman to be all that talented writer. Did Scientology help him become famous? is he contributing to abuse or is he a victim? It is even more disturbing that Terry Prachet (truly talented writer) collaborated with Neil on some books. Are everyone there totally corrupt, ignorant or what

    python

    ReplyDelete
  106. I wrote that in haste so here's clarification:

    'Did Scientology help him become famous?' I meant to say 'did Scientology connections help him?'. I am well aware Scientology tech almost never helped anyone.

    'Are everyone there totally corrupt, ignorant or what?'. I am not even sure what I mean by that, I guess I am talking about celebrity culture and stuff like that.

    thanks for taking time for my stream of consciousness ramblings.

    python

    ReplyDelete
  107. @python

    Re: Neil Gaiman & Scientology

    I have no evidence that Scientology connections particularly helped Neil. From what I can see, it sure looks like Neil is quite successful all on his own talent.

    You may not feel he's talented, but he has won 3 Hugos, 2 Nebulas, and a boatload of other awards. That's based solely on what he did.

    I don't recall ever reading anything by Gaiman, so I have no personal opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  108. @ Bill

    The subject of OT (Operating Thetan) powers is mentioned and discussed a lot on the Internet. There is so much wild speculation on this topic (some of it quite amusing) that I'm not sure what 'powers' an OT is actually supposed to possess according to Scientology 'scriptures'. I guess officially it is described as having absolute control over MEST. But that could be interpreted to mean almost anything.

    Is this subject deliberately kept vague and undefined by Scientology officials to encourage the OT to imagine they have whatever abilities he/she wants? If so, has it always been that way?

    ReplyDelete
  109. @The good old dog

    Re: OT Powerz

    While Hubbard's claims for OT are certainly general, they are not vague at all. He promised that an OT could to anything. Essentially, Hubbard claimed that OTs could create, alter in any way and destroy the physical universe and any part of it -- plus a lot of other stuff. He didn't say "maybe" or "sometimes" or "some MEST" -- his promise was absolute.

    That's an amazing promise. No wonder Scientologists are so loath to admit it was a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  110. thanks for your replay, Just Bill.

    I am not saying Gaiman's books are bad per se, I am just saying that they aren't all that great. I am not saying that his success was completely false, I am merely saying that, maybe, they helped him. As age of internet showed, there are plenty of talented writers who never got publishing deals (for one reason or another). It has A LOT to do with luck (and, I suspect, with connections). There are many handosme girls but few supermodels. Ditto for actors. Gaiman, in my opinion is only mildly talented but he got published. Now the fact that he won rewards certainly suggest that some people really did find his books great but connections can sway opinion somewhat making something thats merely good (or adequate) seem great. That's the first point I was trying to make.

    Second point I was trying to make is the superficiality of our celebrity culture. If someone is connected to neo-Nazis, no one in show business would touch him with 10 foot pole. And yet scientology perpetuates mind numbing amount of abuse and not one celebrity spoke out until recently. Heads of science fiction never stopped publishing antologies with Hubbard's books in them.

    okay that's what I was trying to say.

    Python

    ReplyDelete
  111. @python

    You certainly might be right. I have no information. You make good points.

    ReplyDelete
  112. @python

    If you haven't read The New Yorker's piece "The Apostate" about Paul Haggis, the ex-Scientologist screenwriter, you might want to check it out. It talks about people wanting to be around Scientology for the career help, I believe.

    ReplyDelete
  113. @ Bill

    You wrote....”He promised that an OT could to anything. Essentially, Hubbard claimed that OTs could create, alter in any way and destroy the physical universe and any part of it”

    At what level of the so-called “Bridge to Total Freedom” is the Operating Thetan Scientologist supposed to acquire these godlike powers? Or do they gain them incrementally, beginning at OT I and become all-powerful at OT VIII?

    For the record, I don't believe any of this OT powers rubbish. I'm just trying to understand a little of the Scientology system.

    ReplyDelete
  114. @The good old dog

    Re: OT Powers

    Theoretically, one starts gaining more abilities from the very first contact with Scientology and these abilities grow with each subsequent course or service.

    Hubbard claimed that the increase in abilities and powers itself increases. That is, the farther one travels "up the Bridge" the faster one gains even more powers. I'm assuming he meant a kind of exponential increase.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Bill,

    in 'Where Are All the Scientologists Part 4', you wrote about stages people are going trough when they exit scientology and about 'inner core' of loyal followers. How large is that 'inner core' and how many do you estimate are at phase 2 or 3? Are you in contact with some of them? Are there any moles?

    And how about people raised in Scientology by Sea Org? Can they even really admit what was going on?

    Also do you think current economy might end Scientology as an organization?

    Please don't say absolutely anything if you think something you say might get those people in danger. I am not interested in names, just rough numbers and current general situation. Don't even publish this comment if you feel question is stupidly revealing (it probably is but if you haven't noticed I am obsessed with getting as much data about something as I can).

    python

    ReplyDelete
  116. Will John Travolta ever come out of the closet?

    ReplyDelete
  117. Re: Travolta

    I don't mean to be nasty, but how is anyone's sexual orientation any of your business?

    ReplyDelete
  118. @python

    Re: Inner core

    I actually don't know. I know it exists. I know that, as Scientologists wake up and leave, that inner core will get more defensive, more angry and some will become violent -- and they will become harder and harder to reach. But how many? That's always been the question with Scientology.

    Yes, there are "Scientologists" who know the truth and no longer go along with the con but who are "under the radar". And they can talk to other similarly situated "Scientologists", but even they can't reach the hard-core, true believer Scientologists.

    And, in any cult, there are always such people. True believers no matter what you say, no matter what they see, no matter what happens. They have the **TRUTH** and they won't let go, no matter how much it hurts.

    People raised in Scientology, in the Sea Org, are an especially sad subset of Scientologists. However, I don't think they are unable to see nor admit the problems. True, they don't have personal experiences to compare to Scientology's cult-existence, but they can see the real world. They know. The problem with raised-in-Scientology kids is that they have little or no schooling, little or no useful skills -- and they are afraid. But I think they are very capable of seeing and admitting what a huge con it all was.

    The bad economy has certainly caused Miscavige a whole lot of grief. Getting loyal Scientologists to double and triple-mortgage their houses was a great income source -- and that not only dried up, but many Scientologists were completely, financially ruined because of their heavy debt load.

    But none of this will end the Church of Scientology as an organization. As an organization, it can last as long as Miscavige wants it to. Even when it's down to Miscavige, a few henchmen, and a few hundred victims, he can keep it going. Even if it only exists as one well-guarded compound in some South American country, Miscavige can keep it going. As long as Miscavige has all "his" money and a few followers, he can still be "leader and saviour" of the Church of Scientology.

    Instead of the "end of the organization of Scientology", we should just look to save all who can be saved and to stop the cult from getting any new recruits.

    Ideally, all the criminals should be brought to justice, but I'm not sure that will happen. Look at those who helped Miscavige in carrying out his horrific crimes and abuses and who, themselves, actually perpetrated crimes and abuses of their own. They have left and have, in a very limited way, spoken out, but no one has been "brought to justice".

    So often the statute of limitations has passed before the crimes and abuses are exposed. Other times Scientology's lawyers find ways to legally justify the crimes and abuses.

    Will there ever be justice for the victims? Call me cynical, but I'm beginning to think it will never happen in any broad scale. And Miscavige may never go to prison for his crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Dear Bill:
    How come a public person goes in staff, thinks he is in a great org and then moves to the Sea Org?
    In your experience, being Sea Org member made you feel more powerful or else?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Re: Public -> Staff -> Sea Org

    Most public don't go on staff. Those that do, do it either because they have been promised courses and auditing for free or because they have been convinced it's important for "Clearing the planet".

    Scientologists join the Sea Org for the same reasons, but they consider the Sea Org "more important" and certainly more of a personal sacrifice.

    (Of course, no staff member or Sea Org member gets any services, free or not.)

    Scientology is all about being better than others. Scientologists feel they are superior to "wogs". Staff feel they are superior to public Scientologists. Sea Org members feel superior to lowly staff. And "Upper management" feel vastly superior to the rest of the Sea Org.

    And Miscavige makes sure to abuse and denigrate all the upper management to ensure they know he is so very, very superior to all of them.

    That's Scientology.

    ReplyDelete
  121. @ Bill

    How can Sea Org members consider themselves to be such an 'elite' force in the world of Scientology when they receive little to no services?

    ReplyDelete
  122. @The good old dog

    Because they are more dedicated than the "inferior" staff and public -- they give up more and work insane hours. Of course they are so very superior.

    There are public who know how badly Sea Org members are treated and so, in a classic Scientology tradition, they go around feeling superior to the Sea Org members.

    In Scientology everyone gets to feel superior, one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Dear Bill:
    Quite correct, when I joined staff at a Class IV, everybody in there seemed to be superior to anybody outside. No services provided, even those already paid by myself as we had to work stats up everytime.
    Emergency states most of the time.
    And of course, the staff would not get up the Bridge, even as promised if the "org" reached Saint Hill Size!

    ReplyDelete
  124. I was going to continue your thought and say that I think a lot of the ESMBers (the not quite out ones) feel superior both for having BEEN Scientologists and then for "wising up" to it.

    I was enjoying that until I realized that I MYSELF was being superior for having been one, wised up, and gotten completely out of it in thought and deed.

    Sucks, that.

    Oh, well--the human urge to feel superior probably disappears several moments after death.

    Why no new questions? Everyone feeling flogged by the political news?

    ReplyDelete
  125. This week John Allender and Mark Warlick traveled to Texas to stalk Lori Hodgson while she was receiving auditing from Marty Rathbun. Allender’s first stalking offense was in December when he cornered Lori by her car in the parking lot where she works.

    John Allender is an OTVIII in the San Francisco Bay Area. His wife Linda Allender, OT VIII, was Lori’s C/S while she got audited on the grades. Both are active OT members of the Los Gatos and Stevens Creek orgs. The Texas stalking was done under the pretense of confronting Marty for violating standard tech, something the church will use to rally support and get money from poor church members. The truth is that Allender is stalking Lori Hodgson again, this time with 3 reinforcements. The church is trying hard to scare her, silence her, or some such thing. http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/miscavige-shock-squad-hits-casablanca/

    Lori is a long-time scientologist that left the church after invasive, aggressive Sea Org recruiting of her minor children, once while she was hospitalized and gravely ill. http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/lori-hodgson-is-back-in-the-saddle/ Sadly both children disconnected from Lori. The people that still have their integrity and faculties intact know that Lori Hodgson is a stellar person.

    I did not receive the benefits and self improvements promised by the church, not by a long, wide country mile. However, an area I did find beneficial was the focus on becoming more ethical and truthful. I believed that the church thought these were highly important. My understanding was they wouldn’t let members get auditing if they were involved in “out ethics” situations, such as not filing their taxes.

    My question is what on earth happens to the morals and ethics of scientologists that become upper bridge OT’s? I’ve read your articles and others. Still it mystifies me, the degree to which the ethics and moral compasses of OT’s deteriorate and worsen as they rise up the bridge. I see them lose intelligence and the ability to differentiate right from wrong. They have a “steely stare” and can look straight at people, yet only see partially. They don’t confront the glaring, bold, close to screaming truth. It is like there is an elephant right smack in front of them and they can't even see it. Recently when listening to a friend on OT VII, someone I thought of as a great person, I felt like I was hearing a robotic substitute for life.

    When in, I saw plenty of things that contradicted what I thought was ethical and truthful and deserving of my trust. My reactions varied, I sometimes rationalized it away using the spin I learned from the church, many times I thought the person was unintelligent, socially “challenged”, had bad manners, or had been out of society for too long. At times I was angry at their selective and self-serving justifications. It ended when I couldn’t rationalize the bad behavior, the disregard for decency, the0coldness. I’m still disappointed that I continued in the group even though I saw what I saw. I guess I’m lucky though, as I didn’t stop seeing and noticing. Questions: Do you think OT’s like John Allender still have their mental faculties intact? Do you think know they know they are being lowly bullies, thugs, and are breaking the law? That at best they are very unethical? Or does this type of awareness stop by the time you’re on OT VII or VIII?

    John Allender’s stalking antics made me wonder what happens to people on the other side of Clear. I heard there are a number of Los Gatos and Steven’s Creek people that are afraid to leave the church, so they lurk on websites like Marty’s and yours. Allender and Mark Warlick’s comical escapades likely helped some lurkers find the exit door. Just what these orgs do NOT need – at this point they can’t afford keep their power turned on!

    You've written excellent articles on the issues I rant about and this turned in to more than “Ask A Question”. Thanks for the forum and your excellent blog.

    ReplyDelete
  126. @Anne

    Re: Allender et. al.

    Thanks for your long comment/question/rant.

    I understand your question and confusion. How can people get so lost? Why don't they see the contradictions between the professed standards for Scientologists and the actual thoughts and deeds?

    That is something I've been writing about for some time -- because that is my own confusion as well. I knew many of the actions of the church were wrong and while I might have closed my eyes, as you did, for a while, I would never have participated. Yet some Scientologists not only accept these illegal, unethical and immoral acts -- but actively participate and contribute to such activities.

    Why? How do they justify the disconnect? How do they make that work in their own minds?

    To me, it is very, very ironic that Marty Rathbun, who was one of the leaders involved in ordering and carrying out such activities when he was in the church, is now the target of the same.

    He, of all people, could answer those questions. How did he rationalize the illegal, unethical and immoral actions he ordered and participated in?

    But he doesn't seem to be interested in talking about his actions -- and doesn't seem to see the irony.

    But I can give you more insight. Hubbard, and Scientology, indoctrinate people into black-and-white thinking: "We are absolute Good, they are absolute Evil." "Everything we do is Correct, everything they do is Wrong." "You are either with us, or you are our Enemy."

    There is no middle ground. It's all black and white. Any "grey" is Bad, it is "dilettante", it is "wishy-washy" and is, therefore, black.

    And because Scientology is "absolute Good" fighting "absolute Evil", anything and everything they do is completely justified.

    It really has nothing to do with how far "up the Bridge" someone is -- since Release, Clear and OT don't actually bring about any changes -- it's more a factor of how deeply a Scientologist believes.

    As we've seen, many people, as they go "up the Bridge" wake up, stop believing, and face reality. But a few become deeply ensnared in the mythological battle between ultimate Good and ultimate Evil -- and those people become the shock troops of Scientology, willing to do anything.

    You really can't blame it on the OT levels.

    I would say such people were already unbalanced and that Scientology just struck a chord with their type of insanity.

    You can't understand it, because it is based on insanity.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Dear Bill,
    After pondering the question "Has scientology turned my wife against me."I got to wondering about the whole clearing process.
    So if theatens are "cleared from ones own mind and body,,,where do they go? Surely they are going to seek another "host". And if so then is'nt that alot like raking your leaves into your neighbors yard,lol?
    What would give anyone the right to do that? And does the "church" even care? IF they truely believe this then surely then this would be taken into consideration.
    Anyway on to my first topic. 3 years ago I met a woman online from Sweden.We visited ,fell in love and made plans for her to move to the U.S .Thru conversation she tells me that her brother has been actve in the c.o.s for many years. He is very sucessful in his businesses over there. I many times spoke of my lack of love for this orginization and she would mildly defend it.
    I let her read Sex and Rockets much to her suprise,yet she still hailed it as such a helper to her brother, etc.
    Long story short.. She did in fact move here,sent me $100.000 even to put down on a dream home prior to arriving. We married and obtained a greencard for her but after awhile I came to find out that she was prone to fits of anger much like I have seen out of c.o.s members.
    Eventually the money ran out. Me myself I work an honest blue collar job everyday. She did not want to work so we ended up putting the lovely home on the market and selling it. At this time her mother became ill and she returned to Sweden to "take care" of her.
    You must understand that we loved each other very deeply and were soulmates by definitation.
    Within 3 months she ran thru 50k over there on God only knows what. But the funny thing about this story,,her brother set her up with a "lifecoach" to assist her w/ some direction in her life. since then she has turned on me,, says that I stole all of her $$,accused me on infidelity nurmous times,and now will not speak or write period.
    I cannot help but wonder what the lifecoaching suggestions from my high ranking c.o.s brother in law has done.I am not a bad person by any means but after all the hard work to get her here and legal,,not to mention the massive amount of $ she spent to make it so... any of this sound familliar to you?? ask me questions if you like.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Re: Scientology turning wife against me.

    That is a sad story. There are, obviously, many factors you haven't covered, but from what you describe, it sure sounds like the "lifecoach" was a Scientologist and that could certainly be a factor in her change. Since you are not a Scientologist and don't like Scientology, you would be automatically recast as an "Evil Person" -- therefore "guilty of many undisclosed bad actions" (like infidelity and stealing money).

    The fact that you don't like Scientology is "proof" that you have done Evil deeds. No actual evidence is needed.

    The fact that she rapidly went through $50K in three months sounds like Scientology as well. If they found out she had that money, they'd take it all. I'm surprised it took them that long.

    And, lastly, her absolute "disconnection" from you is another Scientology indicator. Once they had determined you were "Evil", her disconnection would be automatic.

    Yep, I'd say that Scientology did turn your wife against you. Unfortunately, I don't think there is much you can do about it now -- she sounds pretty deeply in. True Believers are incredibly difficult to talk to and impossible to reason with.

    Unfortunately, if she thinks you owe her money, Scientology will push her to go after you for it. That could get ugly -- take steps to protect yourself.

    I'm sorry for your troubles. Scientology sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Hello, Bill. I live not far from "Big Blue" and from a recently announced CoS acquisition, the studio complex of LA's biggest public TV station. Do you have any insight into why, while membership is apparently in sharp decline, church management would plow big money into owning multi-acre TV production studio in Hollywood?

    ReplyDelete
  130. Re: KCET TV sale

    It sounds like a David Miscavige kind of solution. They could make their infomercials, videos and training films cheaply at their Gold Base or even cheaper by renting commercial venues dedicated for that purpose.

    But Miscavige always works out the very most expensive and wasteful way. This fits. He will sink bazillions into renovating it so it fits his tastes and then never produce much, and certainly nothing good. He may even start his own TV station. Wow, that would fail big time.

    It is a tremendously stupid thing to do, so, of course, Miscavige will do it.

    ReplyDelete
  131. @ Bill

    I keep noticing on social networking sites and throughout the Internet that many Scientologists support Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Is it official (or unofficial) CoS policy to support this man? Or has Scientology always had a preference for libertarian politicians?

    ReplyDelete
  132. @The good old dog

    Re: Ron Paul and Scientologists

    There is no official or unofficial church policy to support Ron Paul.

    Back in the 1970s, there was a strong tendency for many Scientologists to support Libertarian policies and to vote Libertarian. I even recall the Libartarian party setting up a registration table outside one of the Scientology churches at that time.

    I don't think that holds quite so true today -- but I haven't seen any political poll of Scientologists, so who knows?

    From my conversations with ex-Scientologists, they appear to be all over the political map with no consensus.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Hi Bill

    I read some of the posts at www.forum.exscn.net, but starting yesterday I get an error message and can't access it, the message says "403 Forbidden Error" and "You are not allowed to access this"

    Do you know if something changed on my end? Or, is there a problem with that site?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  134. @Anne

    Emma reported that something broke -- or someone hacked into the site -- she doesn't yet know what.

    They are working on it.

    ReplyDelete
  135. i have a question,my boyfriend has been in a narconon program since early jan. his parents put him there,it`s been pure hell 4 both of us.all the abuses,well, about 14 days ago, he freaked out during course,saying FU*#! this crap!you`re all crazy!!!well,2 or more guys removed him and i havnt heard from him since!he`s got a court date up in 10 days.they say,"it`s o.k. if you miss it,the judge will understand!"in what way r they punishing him? besides no comunication? oh,after i heard he was locked up, i had a sheriff go n see if he was o.k.sheriff called me back n said my bf wants to disconect with me! SO OUTTA character!!!they said if i called there again, they would press charges! I`m so scared 4 him. what do i do?!

    ReplyDelete
  136. Re: Narconon

    I am so sorry to hear your story. If anyone has any doubts that Narconon is Scientology or whether Narconon is primarily a recruitment vehicle for Scientology, this story should dispel all doubts.

    Your boyfriend "wants to disconnect" from you?! That is pure cult-talk. When a person starts to talk like that, they are deep into the cult indoctrination; they are already accepting the cult's twisted view of the world. In the cult's dogma, they are opposed by a vast conspiracy of Evil People.

    Unfortunately, your boyfriend has been convinced that you are in the conspiracy. You are one of the Evil People. Hence, the "disconnection".

    What can you do?

    At this point, not very much. You could possibly stay in touch if you wrote a letter or made a phone call that avoided any negative statements about Narconon or Scientology -- just an idle, happy conversation. That might, at least, keep you in touch. Understand that a Narconon employee will be listening in on any conversation and they will open and read every letter (even though these would be illegal activities).

    Beyond that, your hands are a bit tied. Your boyfriend has "voluntarily" accepted the cult's restrictions. That puts the law on the side of the cult.

    What do his parents know about Narconon? Are they Scientologists? If not, are they aware of the Scientology connection? Are they aware of Narconon's actual results -- meaning massive failures?

    If his parents are not Scientologists, your best bet may be to enlighten his parents as to the real story behind Narconon. There are some excellent resources exposing Narconon on the Internet to help you.

    Since his parents are footing the (very expensive) bill, they may have the power to get him out of Narconon.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Do Scientologists believe in the death penalty?

    ReplyDelete
  138. Re: Death penalty

    Scientologists believe what L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige tell them. And Hubbard was a strong proponent of the death penalty -- especially for all those who were "low-toned" and anyone who was declared an "Enemy" of Scientology.

    Thankfully, he never carried out his intentions in that regard -- that we know of.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Have you passed by any idle 0rgs lately? Love to read what you saw. I'd have to travel at least 35 miles to get to one and I live in a major US metropolitan.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Re: Idle Orgs

    I am nowhere near any of Miscavige's bogus "Ideal Orgs". Some recent first-hand accounts have seen empty or nearly-empty buildings for a number of these Idle Orgs -- which was the expected result.

    Any readers have any news?

    ReplyDelete
  141. Hello Bill,

    The principle of Dianetics makes sense to me so it’s surprising it doesn’t work. Pavlov proved that we are run by our unconscious mental conditioning. As programmers say, garbage in-garbage out. So we go in there, get rid of all those held down 7s, and free up our bio-computer to make appropriate "life calculations". As we erase our inappropriate conditioning we make fewer and fewer mistakes, we get smarter, eliminate psychosomatic illnesses, we live more in present time and eventually reach our full potential. We free ourselves up by getting rid of our negative conditioning. The entire process seems absolutely logical to me. So why doesn’t it work JB?

    As you pointed out in "The Disappearing States of Clear and OT", no Clear has ever demonstrated any of the god-like abilities that Hubbard promised. For me this is a real puzzler. The mechanics of Dianetics makes logical sense. Why aren’t Clears superhuman beings with magical powers? Why aren’t Scientology Clears the leaders of this generation? Why doesn’t Dianetics work? Your thoughts.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  142. @Dave,

    Re: Dianetics

    That, actually, was my opinion as well. There is no doubt in my mind that Hubbard was a con artist in many ways, but his logical construction of the theory behind Dianetics (and parts of Scientology) was well done. It was self-consistent and, in many ways, made sense.

    Many intelligent people bought his theories.

    So, why no results? Why doesn't the theory work out in real life?

    Being logical and self-consistent doesn't mean a theory is correct. The theory was never properly tested. Hubbard never allowed independent research, testing or modification. There might be some validity to his theories, but, as it stands, it is, at best, incomplete.

    In 1950, Dianetics became wildly popular, and even lauded. Then scientists and other investigators started debunking Hubbard's claims and challenging his theories. Hubbard was not one to accept criticism and work to improve his "science". No, he was a paranoiac, so he claimed "they" were after him. So Dianetics became frozen in that unworkable state -- and there it stands today.

    Could there be something to Dianetics theory? Could something be developed from those ideas?

    Maybe, but I doubt it. There have been "renegades", using many different forms of "Dianetics", for years and nothing significant has shown up. Once again, people may temporarily "feel better" from Dianetics, but that's about all that happens.

    ReplyDelete
  143. To Bill,

    Re: Dianetics

    Yeah, based on the premise established by Hubbard, Dianetics should work, so obviously the premise is false. The theory simply doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny. As the old saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Just because something seems plausible doesn’t mean it is. Even though, as you say, “nothing significant has shown up,” I kinda wish Dianetics was true. Oh well–it isn’t. The theory doesn’t work in the real world. And when you get right down to it we should live in the real world. That is where happiness and success are. Living in a fantasy world is not conducive to survival.

    Thanks for the great blog Bill and the many sensible discussions.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  144. "Who are you going to believe--me, or your own eyes?" Groucho Marx

    ReplyDelete
  145. Hello JB,

    It has often been said that most dictators had a wounded childhood. Certainly Saddam Hussein, Stalin and Hitler all had difficult childhoods.

    Perhaps suffering at an early age leads to extreme self-absorption, paranoia, lack of conscience and a willingness to use whatever means necessary to accomplish goals. Dictators are selfish and have little empathy for the pain and suffering of others. Some would say that Hubbard was dictator in that he shares many of the same characteristics.

    Did LRH have a difficult childhood growing up in Helena, Montana?

    ReplyDelete
  146. @Dave

    Re: Hubbard's childhood

    Much of LRH's childhood is shrouded in his own and the church's obfuscation. Hubbard told nothing but tall tales about his life, although there was a kernel of truth in much of it.

    From what we can tell from factual records, LRH's father was in the Navy, which required the family to move a number of times during LRH's childhood.

    This is never good for a child, having to give up all your friends again and again. With his penchant for tall tales, I can see LRH trying to impress his schoolmates with wild stories, which would have given him a reputation as a liar, a braggart and a fool. I doubt he had many real friends, and there is no evidence of this in real documents or church mythology.

    It is striking that, in all his stories, LRH never mentions childhood friends and no one has come forward to claim that relationship.

    While I doubt he was physically abused, it does seem that he had a pretty lonely and miserable childhood.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Ok. So I am me. A being in a human body. In a way unknown to me at this time I make it move and feel and see and smell and get all these senses. I make my own judgements and have no need of a dependence in something to believe in without proof. no idea or organization. In Scientology, th Philosopy, love of knowledge is ok with me. I love it. The IAS from my observation is a lie. LRH killed is DM born.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Hello Bill,

    What do you think of the theory that Marty and Mike are secretly still working on behalf of the church, to help rescue it in the end? They obviously aren't coming clean by being truthful or forthcoming about their fair game operations in the past - could that be because they'd lose the support of the disaffected scientologists that think all that is wrong is caused by David M, instead of seeing the bigger picture of corruption and deceit in the philosophy and policies? If they are working with the church, the independents are candidates for re-joining the church if DM and current management practices are replaced.

    The church's current ploys are lame and tame by comparison to those conducted by M & M in the past, and they don't acknowledge the elephant in the room - that this approach follows the advice and teachings of LRH.

    Do you think it is part of a twisted scheme by the church? It seems unlikely but am curious what you think.

    A separate comment, the postings by Minerva and Joe on the anti-Marty church site give great insight into the depths of depravity of church leadership, they most certainly approve these posts. Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Re: Mike and Marty conspiracy

    I find the theory of a Mike, Marty and Miscavige conspiracy to be quite interesting. It's actually twisted enough to be true.

    But I sincerely doubt that it is.

    I believe that Marty and Miscavige are competitors, not conspirators. Both want to rule Scientology. Both want the power.

    The reason that Miscavige's attacks on Mike/Marty are so stupid and ineffective is because Miscavige is stupid and ineffective -- not because they are fake. Miscavige appears to be trying very hard to discredit Marty, he just isn't any good at it.

    The reason Mike/Marty won't "come clean" about all their own crimes and all the crimes, lies, abuses and fraud committed by the Church of Scientology is because they don't want to damage the organization they hope to supersede some day. They know the abuses and crimes all trace back to L. Ron Hubbard's policies and orders. They can't do anything to tarnish Hubbard's image without thwarting their own little game.

    That's why avoiding all responsibility for everything is key to Mike/Marty's existence. Miscavige is the only one responsible. Marty did nothing and is pure as the driven snow. Hubbard is Good and Kind and Pure.

    Marty wants to steal Scientology right from under Miscavige. Sure is is horribly damaged but Marty thinks he can rehabilitate its image as a "reformed" Church of Scientology. Good luck with that.

    I don't know if my scenario is accurate, but it does fit all the known facts.

    As I've said before, any Scientology organization is doomed from the very start because they must strictly follow all of Hubbard's policies and orders.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Is Mr. Minerva quoting actual "scripture"? If so, +10 to insanity level...

    "People leave because of their overts and withholds. That is the factual fact and hard-bound rule. A man with a clean heart can’t be hurt. The man or woman who must must must become a victim and depart is departing because of his or her own overts and withholds. LRH"

    ReplyDelete
  151. Daer Bill: I have just received the out of body experience of a close friend, happened about 35 years ago. He has never been in Scn, but once when sick, he perceived everything in 360 degrees from overhead, seeing also his body and later was told he was gone. What else do you know about this?

    ReplyDelete
  152. Re: Out-of-body experiences

    What can I say? Some people believe it is totally bogus but most of the world believes that the soul is separate from the body and can leave the body.

    There is no "proof" either way.

    Personally, I've experienced being out of my body. It was completely real to me, so I believe it is true.

    There is a ton of information out there on this subject.

    But no scientific proof.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Dear anonymous commenter,

    One thing would have to occur before I post anything containing a link to a known Church of Scientology website.

    I would have to go completely insane.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Sorry, but it's an interesting read. Hope you at least take a look. Insanity is included.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Re: CoS "anti-squirrel" website

    It is an odd thing, those who dislike Marty then align themselves with the Church of Scientology. Makes no sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Among other things Hubbard claimed that not smoking enough causes lung cancer, that he was almost run over by a freight train on Venus, and that the inhabitants of Jupiter look like Eskimos. Do Scientologists actually believe this? Did you?

    ReplyDelete
  157. @Dave

    I can't say whether any Scientologists actually believe those crazy statements today. I'm sure such statements were much more believable in the 1950s, when the science fiction pulps were popular and science simply did not know so much about other planets - or smoking.

    Back then, science fiction authors regularly populated the other planets of our solar system with alien races and exotic cultures.

    I know your next question, "If Scientologists today don't believe these things, how do they justify saying Hubbard is always correct when they listen to those lectures?"

    Scientologists have mastered the skill of double-think. They "know" that Hubbard is always 100% correct and simply don't hear it when Hubbard tells one of his crazy stories. That's the best explanation I can give.

    As for whether I believed it or not, I just don't remember. I probably "didn't hear it".

    ReplyDelete
  158. Re: Marty and the "Independent Movement"

    Please note: I don't want to berate people who criticize Marty's site and/or the "Independent Movement".

    I think Marty is a hypocrite for attacking Miscavige for doing the same things that he, himself, did. And I will, myself, criticize Marty for his lies and when he starts adopting the cult attributes of Scientology.

    But I don't want to get involved in the false battle between Miscavige and Marty. I'm not saying it's fake, just that it is not a significant battle. These are two factions of the tiny Scientology group making mountains out of molehills. They are squabbling over minor details while ignoring Scientology's major failures, lies and fraud.

    You will not find truth in either faction's sites, just a lot of accusation and hyperbole.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Apropos crazy statements, do Scientologists actually believe the rhetoric about there being eight or ten million members, given that every reasonable estimate comes up with a tiny fraction of that figure? Do they accept the idea that anyone who ever bought a copy of Dianetics counts as a Scientologist? Or do they simply think that exaggeration is necessary to promote the cause?

    ReplyDelete
  160. Re: Crazy statements

    Yes. I'm sure that most Scientologists truly do believe that Scientology is the "fastest growing religion in the world".

    They are assured, again and again by Miscavige, that Scientology is expanding everywhere (except any place they can personally see). Scientologists have seen Miscavige's very vague exploding graphs that "prove" all is well.

    If they've heard about the real statistics, they would be certain those are lies being promoted by the "Evil Galactic Conspiracy".

    However, those at the top, who are fully aware of the collapse of the church, the story would be the opposite. Since they are aware of the crashed statistics and the empty buildings, they would be the ones thinking that all the exaggerations are necessary to prop up the façade -- to keep the believers in line and happily donating money.

    ReplyDelete
  161. @ Bill r.e. Scientologists actually believe those crazy statements today

    In this sense Scientologists remind me of Mormons. Mormons believe that Native Americans (i.e. Indians–Apache, Inuit, Incas, Aztecs etc.) are descended from Israelites who came by boat from Israel to America in 600 BC.

    Archaeologists, however, studying tools and hunting methods, linguists studying language (not one Native American language resembles Hebrew in any way) and genetic experts through DNA testing, have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Native Americans all came from Asia and not Israel and that they came across the Bering Strait many thousands of years ago. DND tests that hold up in court prove 100% that all Native Americans come from Siberia and not Israel.

    And do you think this overwhelmingly conclusive evidence has any affect on Mormons? No. People are free to believe whatever they want but sheesh! Shouldn’t beliefs be just a little bit credible?

    ReplyDelete
  162. How long can a former member expect to be harassed by the CoS? After leaving about 20 years ago, yesterday I started getting phone calls from them.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Re: How long?

    As long as the Church of Scientology exists, I'm afraid.

    Hopefully, that won't be too much longer.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Kirstie Alley is a “cause over life” OT VII yet she lost Dancing with the Stars. Now I already know from your excellent site that Scientologists are masters of doublethink and cognitive dissonance so I’m curious to know how they would rationalize this loss.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Re: Kirstie Alley

    That's easy.

    All the amazing powers that Ron promised are all achieved at some future, as yet unreleased, OT level.

    No one has any of the promised gains because "they have overts".

    Any failures to exhibit their amazing powers means that they are "connected to a Suppressive Person".

    Pick any of the above and that's the reason.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Re: Kirstie Alley (Pick any)

    If any one of the 3 reasons are to be handled I think we may see a new Kirstie in a few months or barely hear from her again. But, if co$ just enjoys taking what money they can from her she'll remain as is (refrain from insult).

    I feel she'll remain with co$ until it's either fashionable to come out or too dangerous to stay in for her own career. (which could be the same time frame).

    ReplyDelete
  167. Dear Bill:
    So far I knew first hand, many staff members depended upon their relatives support to make ends meet. What was your experience in the SO?

    ReplyDelete
  168. Re: Depending on family

    Definitely. Staff members are, basically, unpaid. They cannot survive without help. Some have day jobs, some depend on their spouse or other family.

    However, Sea Org members commonly must live on what pittance they are given since they are pretty thoroughly cut off from any family or friends. "Luckily" they are provided food and berthing, so they won't die. Unluckily, the food and berthing are awful.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Dear Bill:
    Thank you for your prompt answer. A ex friend of mine got in La Hacienda at Flag and the dormitory was filthy and infested with cockroaches. Very distant to the glove inspected facilities they promote. I was at the Fort Harrison, and smells were like those of a sweetshop. The door did not have lock, er it was locked with a towel...back in 1978.
    Do Registrars both in staff and in the SO earn more money than the rest?

    ReplyDelete
  170. Re: Registrars

    I don't know if Registrars on staff get more money, I just don't remember. Perhaps some reader will chime in on that.

    I do know that Sea Org Registrars can rake in a ton of money. They are buying cars while regular S.O. members are eating beans and rice.

    Of course, the IAS Registrars are the ones making the very, very big bucks.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Do you have any information on Werner Erhard and est? Apparently a lot of the est training was based on Scientology and Hubbard went after Erhard with both barrels. I took est in 1975 and it knocked my socks off. The training took only 4 days and cost $300. Have any ex-Scientologists posting here done est? How does it compare with Scientology?

    ReplyDelete
  172. Re: EST

    I know nothing of EST. Perhaps someone else can answer your question.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Advice please!

    As a child who had her family broken up by Scientology in the early 80's (yep, I guess Mom & I were suppressive) I have very little patience for the organization or its members. My problem is this: My husband attended one meeting at his sister's invitation (it was the only one either of them ever attended) about 15 years ago and now COS has gotten our number and will not stop calling. Both of us have requested to have the number taken off of their call list politely, then firmly, and now I just get angry. How do I get them to stop calling my home?

    ReplyDelete
  174. Re: Stopping CoS calling

    That's a very good question and one that many people are looking for an answer to.

    Unfortunately, the answer is that it can be very hard. Politeness does not work. You have to be ugly, rude and insulting -- and most people find that difficult to do.

    Insult Hubbard and Scientology. Tell them it's a fraud, con and scam. Tell them that Hubbard was a liar and a fraud. Heck, make up stuff. What you are looking for is getting them to "deadfile" your name. Per policy, those who "enturbulate" must be deadfiled so that they are never contacted again.

    If your phone number has been spread about, this may take awhile.

    I hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Re: CofS Calling. My sister became involved with Scientology and went into quite a bit of debt buying packages of services. Several years ago she requested her money back for those courses and services she had paid for in advance but been unable to take because she hadn't reached the required grade level (promised when she paid for everything of course). She simply stuck to her guns, polite but firm, through the whole long drawn-out process and eventually she did get a refund. (Threatening to sell the e-meter on e-bay didn't go over well, but did get them to cough up the money to buy it back--Sci: "You can't do that--it's a religious artifact!" My sis: "To you it's a religious artifact. To me it's a hunk of metal worth big bucks on e-bay"...) Anyway, my point is that even as she was signing the papers that said she would never again pursue Scientology training, the gal helping her was trying to get her to come to the event that weekend. My sis: "Um, well, considering I'm about to be kicked out of Scientology forever, maybe that's not such a good idea..." Sci: "Oh, yeah, right..." Even now, they still occasionally call her. Enthusiastically talking to them about another new-agey training she's doing (which they feel is a "stolen" spin-off from Scientology) will usually get them to hang up quickly. They must get credit for number of calls made regardless of whether it gets someone into the org--why else would they continue to call people who have clearly left or told them NO a hundred times?

    ReplyDelete
  176. Dear Bill, Forgive me if you've addressed this one before. I'm fascinated to follow the "protestant" movement that seems to be emerging through Marty Rathbun's website. On that site, and related channels, Scientology disconnection is routinely scorned as another of Miscavige's abuses. But that policy--and the concept of the "SP"--is integral to Hubbard's system, isn't it? If I've got that right, then I'm wondering how the "independents" treat it. If I were one of those OTIIIs auditing with Marty in Texas, and I liked to stay in close contact with my pal or family member Just Bill (for example), would they tolerate that?

    Thanks again for an excellent web site.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Re: Marty and the Independents

    (Sounds like a rock band)

    Poor Marty has to walk a very thin line. I believe he wants to be the Big Leader of Scientology, and that what we are watching is simply a battle for control of the Church of Scientology.

    That's why David Miscavige is putting all his attention on Marty Rathbun, and vice-versa.

    And the fine line that Marty is walking is between rejecting "all the abuses" while lauding Hubbard. He knows, as we all know, you can't separate the abuses from Hubbard's "Standard Tech". The abuses, such as fair game, SPs and disconnection are solid Hubbard tech.

    But Marty's target "followers" have been declared SP and have been disconnected by their family and friends. He must give lip service to being anti-disconnection, while still promoting it in practice (because it is Hubbard's policies).

    So he talks about "avoiding sources of enturbulation" and "not talking to all the 'haters'". He's talking about disconnection in fact, but not in name.

    It's the same old abuses, isolation and thought control, just with (temporarily) nicer words around it.

    So, to answer your question, no they would not tolerate any of their Scientologists being connected to a "hater" like Just Bill.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Just what is it going to take for the authorities in the USA to do something about the abuses of Scientology? Who in government is going to stand up and start to do something about it? Why have Australia, Germany, France, UK (and other countries) taken the lead in limiting the power of the CoS even though the CoS is much less of a threat in those countries?

    It seems as though the CoS has managed to get itself into an unassailable position in its homeland, where not even the IRS can touch them.

    Despite the mountain of evidence of abuse, it seems if you want to hide behind a cloak of religion, and a massive legal fund, you can just keep getting away with it.

    We of course heard in the New Yorker article that the FBI are looking into various matters. I am really concerned that if that investigation leads nowhere we are simply looking at the ongoing status quo for decades to come.

    Yes I know that Scn membership continues to dwindle, but those at the very top of Scientology seem unlikely to ever be brought to account for their misdeeds.

    How has this been allowed to happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Where is the American equivalent of a Senator Xenophon?

    ReplyDelete
  179. Re: Where is America's Xenophon?

    I don't know. Being seen as "attacking a religion" is very, very risky in the US, even a religion that is generally seen pretty negatively.

    It is because of the freedoms enshrined in the US Constitution that a very side latitude is given to religion -- and any group claiming religious status.

    The FBI has direct experience with the backlash when they've gone after small, fanatical "religious" groups without enough information. You must also remember that, once the FBI has "freed" the members of such a small, fanatical group, those members will swear that there was no abuse, there were no crimes, there was no fraud -- no matter how much abuse, crimes and fraud there actually was.

    The FBI cannot win that kind of action -- but they are not supposed to ignore such abuse, crimes and fraud either. Rock and a hard place.

    Hence, they are moving very slowly and carefully.

    Will they act? I hope so. When? I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Re: Where is America's Xenophon?

    The continued survival of the group is used by current members to dismiss the continuous stream of allegations.

    They say "If we are so bad, if all these stories are true, then why are we still here?".

    Of all the lines of defense that they put out there, this one is the hardest to argue against I find.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Yes, I know what you mean.

    But, as usual, the way the Scientologist frames the question is disingenuous.

    There is no "we" in the crimes, abuse and fraud. Most Scientologists are honest, decent people.

    Those specifically and directly responsible the abuse, crimes and fraud are extremely well protected by layers of true believers who are all willing to "fall on their swords" to protect the church leaders. Those responsible are protected by a stable of million-dollar lawyers on call 24 hours a day. Those responsible live in secluded compounds protected by razor wire or, in the case of David Miscavige, spend most of their time out of the country.

    But don't argue with a Scientology OSA troll. That's just wasting your time.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Just Bill
    I realy don~t understan how Scintology got the tax exampt?

    Doses the IRS stupid?

    I read on the Internet that Scintology fair gaim them, it is posibail to fair game, or black mail the govermant?

    or can the IRS take away from them the tax exmpt?

    ReplyDelete
  183. Re: Tax exempt status

    It is my understanding that it was an all-out attack by the church.

    They got every Scientologist they could to file a lawsuit against the IRS. Apparently, it was thousands of lawsuits. That was a massive burden to the IRS.

    Second, they founded and funded a anti-IRS group that was very noisy in advocating abolishing the IRS entirely. The IRS was very well aware that the church was behind it.

    Third, it is rumored that the church thoroughly investigated every IRS employee who had anything to do with Scientology's case -- especially the top officials. Apparently, they found dirt.

    It's impossible to verify that last one, but it's totally standard operating procedure for Scientology, so I don't doubt it in the least.

    In the end, it was just too expensive for the IRS to continue to deny the Church of Scientology's tax exemption. It was also personally to dangerous for any IRS official to stand in the way.

    Given that kind of financial, political and personal pressure, it is no surprise the IRS caved. Whether it's right or even legal simply didn't enter the equation at that point.

    As part of the secret settlement, the church dropped all the lawsuits and totally stopped supporting the anti-IRS group (which quickly fell apart). Understood, but not stated, was that, as long as the IRS kept in line, the church would never release the "dirt" they found.

    As usual, honesty and openness were never part of the church's strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Just Bill

    How come the IRS didnt go to the FBI?

    ReplyDelete
  185. Re: IRS going to the FBI

    Basically, because the Church of Scientology attacks on the IRS were, for the most part, perfectly legal. Filing thousands of lawsuits (if they are legitimate) is legal. Creating an anti-IRS group is legal. Even employing private investigators to dig into people's private affairs is legal. Blackmail, of course, is illegal, but we don't know how the church did that.

    I doubt that the IRS knew of all the crimes, abuses and fraud perpetrated by the church, which would have been grounds for notifying the FBI.

    ReplyDelete
  186. just Bill

    And that what is so scary about Scintology, whit the so called ligal war they wone the IRS and Lisa MacP.

    I the only sulition is if People will stop to take thier courses

    ReplyDelete
  187. It look like scintology is above the law

    ReplyDelete
  188. Dear Bill:
    I now know why the insist "Scientology IS a religion"
    Because religion is run by DOGMA from the Source, CoB or whoever.
    No reason admitted!

    ReplyDelete
  189. On 30 December 2009, William Rex Fowler, an OTVII, murdered Thomas Ciancio–a non scientologist partner in his Denver, CO business following Scientology management techniques–before putting a bullet into his own head. Fowler survived his suicide attempt. On 26 February 2011, after just two hours of deliberation, a jury found Reverend Fowler guilty of murder and sentenced him to life in prison.

    This is obviously a horrible tragedy. My question to you Bill is this: How would a Scientologist rationalize this sort of irrational behavior coming from an OTVII?

    ReplyDelete
  190. Re: Rex Fowler, OT VII

    This rationalization is carefully built into Scientology by Hubbard.

    Or, I should say, rationalizations:
    - He really wasn't OT.
    - He really hadn't completed any of the Grades.
    - He was "out-ethics".
    - He had overts.
    - He had "out-tech" run on him.

    In other words, most of the excuses that Scientologists use when Scientology fails can be used to excuse such horrible actions by a Scientologist.

    By Scientology's definitions, he wasn't a "real" Scientologist.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Here are Rex Fowler's "Scientology Service Completions" and he also called Reverend:
    http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/r/rex-fowler.html

    So Bill, I'm genuinely flabbergasted by your response. How can an OTVII not be an OTVII? Quite a revelation--Scientologists are more fu#$%d up than I thought. There is no way this organization can survive.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Re: Flabbergasted

    Yep. I think you've got Scientology. That's the correct reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Hello, Bill. What do you think the mind set of the scientologists who are alleged to be routinely humiliated and effectively imprisoned, some for years, in "the hole" at Gold Base is? If you could pull those folks (supposedly Heber Jentsch is among them) away from that scene into a non-threatening environment, what do you think they would say? I guess I'm especially curious to know whether they feel as though they are being abused or whether they are somehow benefitting from or deserving of their treatment.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Re: People in "the hole"

    I'm afraid these people have undoubtedly been brainwashed. I'm speaking quite literally. Look up brainwashing techniques and you will find many of the methods are and have been used in the RPFs and in "The hole".

    If you could magically take them out of the hole, I think they all would ask, even demand, to go back so they could "finish their program". That's why they stay. That's why the FBI can't free them and have them testify as to the abuse and crimes. They are actually brainwashed.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Not a question, just an awesome video by LRH's great-grandson:

    http://youtu.be/ciupsqkLLkQ

    ReplyDelete
  196. Bill, please help me to understand something about the mentality of some scientologists that puzzles me no end. One of the first times I became aware of the strangeness of the church was in about 1990, when the LA Times ran a major investigative expose. I read it with fascination, then I began to notice pro-Scientology ads on the sides of buses around town (I live in LA). These ads engaged in the most blatantly dishonest pull-quotes I have ever seen. If, for example (I don't recall the exact texts, so I'm inventing an approximation), the Times' reporters had written "Scientologists may claim that L Ron Hubbard is the greatest human ever to walk the earth, but our research reveals that he was a money-grubbing con man who lied about his past," the ad would proclaim "L Ron Hubbard is the greatest human ever to walk the earth! -- LA Times." I have seen this same sort of shameless distortion coming from Scientologists editing on Wikipedia, including very recently, so this is clearly something that at least some of them find acceptable as a matter of policy. I guess my question boils down to this: when they engage in blatant dishonesty, where there is no possible way they could fail to realize they are misrepresenting facts, what are they thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  197. Re: Scientology lies.

    You might get a bit of the idea from The Great Anti-Scientology Conspiracy That Never Was.

    Scientologists believe that what they are doing will "save the universe". No, really. To a Scientologist, it is all that important.

    L. Ron Hubbard has told them "the fate of every man, woman and child for the next endless trillions of years" depends on what they do to protect and promote Scientology.

    They also believe that any and all opposition to their campaign is led by the Evil Galactic Conspiracy. Every single person who criticises Scientology is in the pay of the Evil Psychs and Big Pharma.

    Not only do Scientologists have to use every dirty trick in the book to defeat this Great Evil but (because they are all Superior Beings) they are above mere "wog" laws and rules.

    They can lie and much worse, because their goal is the salvation of everyone in the universe. Their lies are a "greater truth".

    ReplyDelete
  198. Hi Bill,

    How likely do you think it is that David Miscavige and Hubbard were ever lovers? Maybe that could explain the extreme homophobia. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  199. Re: David and Ron

    Not very likely. Hubbard liked to surround himself with young, pretty girls.

    David, on the other hand, is pretty chummy with Tom Cruise. The photos I've seen have looked ... suspicious.

    ReplyDelete
  200. Just Bill



    What you can tell to an OT8 once, back to OT7, back to Advance program, who ends up Alcoholic, bankrupt, divorce, lonely - who still think nothing wrong whit the Church/Tec and all his problems comes from his out ethic and it is the only reason why he didn't get all the gains?

    ReplyDelete

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