Because of various problems with Blogger, I've copied everything as of November 26, 2012 over to WordPress. The new location is Ask the Scientologist. I am not deleting this blog and will still accept comments and answer questions here too, but any new articles will appear at the WordPress location. I apologize if this causes any problems.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

True Believers Confirm That Scientology Is Very Weak

According to the True Believers of Scientology, the Scientology technology is absolutely perfect, 100% effective, a solution to everything, and ...
incredibly weak.
Let me explain this carefully, because the facts speak for themselves.

There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of True Believers who say "Standard Scientology" is absolutely, positively 100% effective.  A vast majority of these self-proclaimed "appliers of standard Scientology" were in the Church of Scientology when David Miscavige was in charge.  They were there as Miscavige destroyed the church and perverted the technology.

And, (this is key) these Standard Scientologists insist that all the problems and failures of the church are all Miscavige's fault.  All the failures, crimes, perversions and abuse are not failings of the Scientology technology, which is "perfect", but the fault of only one man: David Miscavige.

These Scientologists vehemently insist that there is no fault in Scientology, and, if Miscavige were removed all would be well.

Let's go over this very carefully.  Here we have hundreds, maybe even thousands of self-proclaimed "appliers of Standard Scientology", applying this Standard Scientology technology within the Church of Scientology  -- and they were defeated by one man.  All Standard Scientology being applied by these hundreds of Scientologists was no match for one evil man, apparently applying his Super Evil Technology.

That's pretty amazing.  According to them, Scientology is one incredibly weak technology -- one man defeating hundreds of Standard Scientologists.

But that's not all.

According to standard Scientology, any Scientologist who has any contact at all with anyone who has expressed any disagreement with or criticism of Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard will have trouble, will get sick, and will lose their gains from Scientology.  The higher up the Scientology levels a person goes, the more this a factor.  Apparently, there is no amount of Scientology processing that will proof you up against a person who disagrees with or criticizes Scientology.

Let's go over that carefully.  Scientology is, apparently, so weak, that all gains are lost simply because one person has disagreed or criticized the Scientologist, Scientology or Hubbard!  That's what Scientology says.

But wait, there's more!

Again and again, these "appliers of Standard Scientology" justify Scientology's continual failure to produce the stellar results promised on The Scientology Grade Chart by saying, "Well, that wasn't Standard Scientology".  In the entire history of Scientology, there is not one documented case where a true Clear was produced; there is not one documented case where a true OT was produced.

Again and again, the excuse is that it wasn't "Standard Scientology".

Do you see what that means?  Thousands and thousands of people studying Scientology, trying as hard as they can to exactly practice Standard Scientology, for over sixty years, and they couldn't do it.  Apparently, Scientology technology is so sensitive that the slightest variation makes it invalid and it won't produce the promised results.  That is not what you could call a "robust" technology.

No, that's the opposite of robust.  That's a very, very weak technology!

All this is exactly what these Champions of Standard Scientology are saying, but they're not paying attention to what it means.  It means that, deep down, they believe that Scientology technology is incredibly weak.


  1. Well, as far as I know the true believers accuse critics of "invalidating their gains". Can you really invalidate something that isn't valid? (The e-meter measures weight of thoughts? Gimme a break!)

    I'm sure you read the blogs at 'Leaving Scientology', which is mainly frequented by the so-called Independant Scientologists. They keep lamenting how Scientology used to be fun and benevolent and whatnot, until the tiny tyrant perverted everything. Will they ever realize that this explanation is awfully convenient? Reading this article would definitely help.

    But why should they read it? Obviously you're not a tiger, you gave up the fixed, dedicated glare. You don't care that the wogs remain weak and stupid. When you eventually bump into the Ol' (con)man, he'll revoke your eternity. Well, maybe you get it right in the next life.

  2. @Anonymous

    I am amazed at the rampant irresponsibility of some of these True Believers. Nothing bad is Scientology's fault; nothing bad is their fault, it's always someone else's fault. And so nothing gets fixed.

    Finger-pointing seems to be a major part of "Standard Scientology".

  3. I have a different observation about the Leaving Scientology site. When I first started reading the on-line blogs I thought that site was pretty much the same as Marty Rathun's site but lately the comments seem to be changing. It seems like more people are saying they are ex- scientologists. I've only been paying attention to this for a short time, so I'm interested to know how it looks from your perspective, Just Bill. Do you detect any change in tone of people commenting on your blog, or on other blogs you might read? Are you seeing what I think I'm seeing?

  4. Re: Change in tone

    Well, I used to get a lot more disagreement, debate and argument -- which was kind of fun. But, now? It really is pretty hard to judge.

    I think I get lots of readers, judging by comments and links elsewhere, but I really don't get a lot of comments here -- so it's a bit hard to gauge the tone of my readers.

    However, on the Internet in general, there certainly has been a change in tone over the years. Especially recently I have been seeing a lot more people calling themselves "ex-Scientologists". Overall, it looks better and better.

  5. Ha, ha, way to go! I'm always amazed that for true believers, taking things to their logical conclusion is just never an option. So, you have to do it for them, Just Bill.

  6. @kind of fun

    When the curtain soon closes on current organized CoS it will be like losing a favorite TV show. But, instead of re-runs we will have court cases to follow and the inevitable "Where's Davie" hunt.

    What I see is that most true believers on those blogs are recently out and starting to accept the facts as their new freedom allows the view of the real world.

  7. I agree 100%. I think I said something similar in a comment a while back. How useful can it be in a broad sense, how universally helpful to everyone if it requires such pinpoint precision to actually work? Something like that is not appropriate for broad sale to the public. And that's being generous with the idea that any of it works at all when "done properly"...

    Anyway, keep up the good work! I always enjoy your posts and the the topic of this article is very revealing and something believers should think about. Truly helpful methods or ideas can take a fair amount of manipulation before becoming ineffective. Not so Scientology, so say Scientologists!

  8. As a 30 year Scientology veteran, I finally had to turn back to my roots as a man trained in science to realize that there is no "tech" in Scientology. It starts with DMSMH - Dianetics the Modern "Science" of Mental Health. Hubbard makes finite, tangible claims in that book which EVERYBODY wants - eidetic memory and erasure of their psychosomatic ills. Who WOULDN'T want that? And I repeat, these claims are TANGIBLE. They are not vague. You can TEST for them to see if the person now possesses these attributes. They are not untangible benefits like "I feel less massy" or "I'm more myself now." Hubbard NEVER, ever offered scientific proof that his "science" produced these results. Hell, if the drug companies have to show their double-blind studies proving the efficacy of their drugs, and get sued if the study was flawed, why wouldn't Hubbard be expected to produce such evidence? Oh sure, later he conducted some vague "validation" where people got IQ and personality tests after auditing, but so what? Where are the tests PROVING the person now has photographic memory or PROVING he now has now psychosomatic ills? It's THOSE original claims in the book that get people reaching for more and moving up the bogus Bridge hoping to achieve. And NOBODY ever achieves it. Failing to scientifically validate his "science" Hubbard then created his religion. Now you don't need real proof - just BELIEVE! Have FAITH! Well, I no longer do. If Hubbard couldn't prove his original claims that got me and so many others reaching for more and more, why should I believe he found the way to frickin' IMMORTALITY? No, there is no "tech" in Scientology. And True Believers are just that - true BELIEVERS.

  9. The test for me in leaving scientology has been whether I could take with me my own true realizations about spirituality without also dragging along any of the baggage/crap that I "bought" without fully examining it. I did experience growth while a scientologist, and I also stunted my own growth in some areas at the same time. I am still separating those things out.
    I am certainly not the same person who became a scientologist 31 years ago. At that time I was willing to squash that little voice in my head that warned me that organized religion was a danger to the individual and usually a means of manipulation by those abusing their power. I am not willing to squash that voice today.

    Not everybody leaving the church feels that they have anything of value to take away with them. Those people are usually pretty bitter and unwilling to take any responsibility for any part of their own experience inside the cult.

    Some leaving the church think that everything in scientology was of value but that mean old david miscavige ruined everything. Similarly, many of them tend not to take much responsibility for their own condition, either, assigning "cause" for all their "gains" and "wins" to the tech and to LRH.

    So,as I said, I'm in the process of re-evaluating it all. I made the break several months ago, but I'm finding it's an ongoing process. Hearing what you have to say about it from your own experience and your own perspective is proving to be very helpful to that process. Thanks for the honesty about the good and the bad, and for being tough enough to do this job.

  10. @anonymous 30 year scn vet: Well said! I imagine thousands of people wondering what happened and hoping for something and expecting these "results" -- and waiting. They'll be waiting forever if all they ever try is $cientology. There are so many other options...different yes, but workable and helpful.
    Glad you're done? Me too.

  11. Bill,

    Your posts are always fresh and surprising. It's like you take some dim thought I've had in the past and articulate it into an entire, logical post which blows my mind.

    Today's post is no different. For the life of me, I have never understood how it is that an OT would not be able to look at anti-Scientology data since they are supposedly "cause over matter, space, energy and time". They should be the "Confronters of Confronters". Instead, when they are presented with any criticism, they do a "duck and cover". They can't see it, talk about it, THINK about it - nothing. It's as if their "bridge" is, in reality, just a house of cards, ready to topple at the slightest breeze. Poof! Like you say, Bill - WEAK. Very, very weak. When you get to the point (like I did) where even having a critical thought can spawn a near meltdown, you are in deep trouble as human being.

    BTW, I love all the comments from your posters. Very insightful people.
    I was also in for over 30 years. So - I get it.

    Unfortunately - I really, really get it.

  12. I remember being at Flag a dozen or so years ago, and a protester with a picket sign showed up. The sign might have had some kind of OT 3 reference on it or something.

    I was stopped from going outside by a security guard and told to go to the side of the building and wait for a van. Then we were loaded into the van, which had the windows obscured by a plastic film so that we couldn't see out, and were driven to the various buildings.

    OK. So this was one or maybe two protesters shutting down all foot traffic around the whole operation. And all of the staff and all of us OTs were forced to sneak around like terrified school children. I protested this whole action, because by our behavior, we were basically stating that a couple of picketers were far more dangerous and powerful than all the OTs at the Flag land base combined and thus the solution was to avoid.

  13. Great post and great insight.

    While the proposition that Scientology is a weak technology explains DM's control of the organization makes much sense, a couple of alternative explanations come to mind.

    First, the degree to which control over the individual is an artifact of the processes, culture, and environment of this belief system will ultimately guarantee the success of a self-serving leader. I am not even suggesting that mind control is bad – if that what you want. It's just that any organization that practices such control on its adherents will be at such a high risk of being subjected to negative influences and engaging in negative behavior.

    The second explanation is that DM has an even more powerful tech with which he can counter all of the 'good' tech of Scientology. The Super Power Rundown has been advertised since 1978 as eminent yet has never been released. Could it be that DM has kept it for himself and is using it to control the organization? Those who think they have taken this have, in fact, been given a fake rundown. Witness Matt Feshbach's subsequent crash and burn. I personally prefer this theory as it would make such a great movie plot...

  14. LOL! Yes, the Great Conspiracy Theory, whichever theory you prefer, is always the best entertainment value. I'm always up for hearing the latest.

    But I must ensure everyone understands that the proposition that Scientology is very, very weak is the True Believer's proposition, not mine. Every justification they give for Scientology's problems is based on that presumption.

    If Scientology is perfect and if Scientology's solutions are always the best solutions and if Scientology works 100% -- then all problems and failures can only be because Scientology is incredibly delicate and weak, and that is what True Believers are actually saying.

    My theory is a bit different and a lot simpler: Scientology isn't perfect; Scientology's solutions are, usually, not best; Scientology does not work 100%. The benefit of my theory is that it fits all the facts.

    It occurs to me that the basic failure is not that Scientology doesn't work 100%, the basic failure is that Scientologists have total faith that it works 100%, and so they cannot see and cannot evaluate the actual results.

  15. Just Bill - I see your point and it makes complete sense to me. We're talking about blind faith. Scientologists believe, without ever having seen proof, that scientology always works. KSW was the kiss of death, as far as I'm concerned. Not only did LRH take complete credit for creating a body of tech which he in fact merely compiled (for the most part), but he effectively said it could not be improved. That doomed it.

    You can't prove a negative; that scientology never fails is not provable. You can have personal certainty from your own observaton and your own subjective experience, but it's not then a "fact."And if you adopt scientology's infallibilty as a "stable datum" without examining it (as every scientologist is required to do), you will automatically disregard the many failures you do see as failures on the part of the individual. It's insidious.It's a kind of self-induced blindness. And to the degree it's out of agreement with reality, it's insane. It's not rational. You know you can't argue with an insane person. I'm sure you know what it's like to argue with a devout scientologist. Pretty much the same thing.

  16. @Nancy P.

    You are right. However, that "you can't prove a negative" is sometimes used to excuse things that can be proven.

    For example, I've said that Scientology has never produced a true Clear or a true OT. Now that is a negative that would be difficult to actually prove. But I've had True Believers claim that it's "impossible" to refute that -- saying "you can't prove a negative". But, you see, that's totally false. Refuting my contention would be the simplest thing in the world. I say "there are no true Clears, no true OTs from Scientology, and all the True Believer has to do is produce one, just one. Very, very simple -- but, you see, impossible -- because I'm right.

    And, of course, one can't prove that Scientology does fail when the True Believers label every actual failure as "not Scientology".

    Anyway, I know I can't convince a True Believer to abandon their belief for a little truth -- I just hope I can educate potential recruits on what to look for and what to ask.

  17. Well, proving that just one clear or true OT has been made by scientology would be very easy to prove if there were any, I agree!

    I think you're doing much more than educating potential recruits. That by itself would be very valuable, and you may have been doing more of that than anything else in the past. But now you're also helping rehabilitate people who are waking up. You're providing a forum for people who need to examine old ideas and who need to have someone to bounce things off of in order to put their thoughts into words, to find out what they now believe is true. You're a good source of straight talk. Your first-hand experience with the subject makes your site a good place to come for a dose of reality.

  18. Yes its just weird that its treated as if it is fragile and so easy to break. Its a nuttiness that has grown over the years to a point of ridiculousness. Useful and workable processes are just that and work well even poorly done. Valuable information remains valuable in the face of any and all criticism. It's really a baffling attitude, but maybe not if you crank in an acceptance of information without really evaluating it for yourself. Maybe it is more a fear that people will feel embarrassed about their association and so not continue their studies but its not too bright to handle it by deliberately violating basic ideas like when in doubt communicate and so on!

  19. Refreshing article, I must say. Tks for writing it.

    Some background and some hopefully useful comments: A few years ago, I went from being a Scientologist for more than a quarter of a century to becoming an EX-Scientologist, within 2-3 weeks -- through a series of life events that allowed me to think and act out of the box and have my very o-w-n observations and realizations, for a change!

    This truly freed me, and though the "recovery"
    period is gradual, long and tough, it's been a million percent worth it, and I'm very glad I didn't stop at the level (or only partially through the string pull, to use Scientology's Admin terms) of "All that's wrong is DM, his dupes, his and their abuses and out-ethics and lack of "Standard Tech" application --- as I would not be fully free from the delusion.
    I totally agree with your article, and with
    many of the comments posted too.

    ... And though I don't totally disapprove of what most of the "Independents" are doing (as Miscavige's abuses should be exposed and dealt with, needless to say), it's hard to relate with these so-called Independents, as they're not objective or fully rational yet, due to their beliefs and the influence of their long brainwash with the "tech" and the mandates of KSW # 1, "Ethics tech", etc. So I've decided to not communicate with them much, or not at all
    in some cases, as it's pointless and frustrating. There's plenty of good to be done
    elsewhere, plenty of help and service to provide to others who are more rational and objective.

    Nevertheless, I care for them as human beings and I can only hope that they open their eyes fully at some point. Fighting who or what's "bad" is a favorite activity of the ego (or our false selves) and it's a dead end. The world, and life, sure is nicer when it's more real! One can then find one's true spirituality, and one can truly make the best of it, while enjoying the ride too, each and every moment.

    Thanks for putting up and keeping up this site.


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.