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, November 20, 2010

Why Scientology Isn't a Future Danger

"Scientology" as practiced within the Church of Scientology is 100% pure cult-control. This "church" is a greedy, dishonest, fraudulent and criminal organization.  However, it is no longer dangerous in a broad sense because it is extremely small and currently in the last throes of collapsing.  It has no future and its danger is primarily to those still trapped inside the cult.

But what about Scientology outside of and disassociated from the Church of Scientology?

Anyone who has read this blog knows I am not an apologist for Scientology and its cultish thought-control, but I do contend that it isn't, and will never again be, as dangerous as some people seem to think it is or could be.

Now, it is true that L. Ron Hubbard created and institutionalized the abuses of the Church of Scientology -- things like the RPF, disconnection, fair game, "enemy" lists and declares and all such abuses.  These abuses are built into the core of Scientology.  Couldn't that happen again?

Certainly, but I believe that any attempt to implement such abuses outside of the church would result in the automatic destruction of any group that attempted it.

You see, the huge difference between Scientology within the Church of Scientology, and Scientology outside of the church is summed up in one word, "monopoly".  The Church of Scientology contends that it and it alone is the proper and only purveyor of "Standard Scientology".  According to the church, there is no "real Scientology" available outside of the church.  If you are expelled from the church, you are doomed -- any "Scientology" you might get outside of the church is so terribly flawed that it would destroy you.

And so, according to the church, you must remain in the church and you must toe the line and you must do everything they tell you to do or you will be condemned to destruction forever.

And this dogma keeps the True Believers trapped inside the church's draconian control.  Or, at least, it used to.

But now, more and more Scientologists are leaving the Church of Scientology and, if they still believe, they are finding Scientology practitioners outside who also claim to deliver "Standard Scientology".  Suddenly, Scientology is available from hundreds (maybe even thousands) of groups and individuals.  Once someone has left the church, they understand that there is no such monopoly.

And this is why outside Scientology cannot institute the exact same abuses as the church.

Imagine some True Believer, part of some independent Scientology Group A, runs afoul with Group A's leader and "gets declared".  Well, so what?  He or she just goes somewhere else.  If Scientology Group A becomes known for their abuse, they will cease to exist.  If Scientology Group A becomes greedy, they won't get any business.

You will, inevitably, see the following comedy played out in the independent Scientology field: "You're a suppressive! You're declared!", "No, you're the suppressive, you're declared!", "No, you are!", "No, you are!".  Any attempts by one group to implement the abusive parts of Scientology will just become comedy.

In addition, without the million-dollar lawyers of the church, any Scientology group will be held responsible for any and all abuse, fraud and criminal behavior.  These parts of Hubbard's technology cannot be implemented if the group wants to survive.  Any attempt to implement Hubbard's more abusive practices will only lose them customers and, possibly, get them into legal trouble.

One of the most powerful tools against Scientology's abuses is all of you on the Internet.  With all of Scientology's "secrets" and all of Scientology's abuses and failures exposed for all to see, any Scientology group is going to be hard-pressed to sell its "solutions" and its "miraculous results".  The watchful eye of the Internet is not going to go away.

But there's even more.  Outside Scientology is not just in competition with other Scientology practitioners -- it is in competition with every other self-help group, every other philosophy, every motivational speaker, every religion -- in short, they are in competition with every other person and group that claims to make you feel better and improve your life.

And, unlike Scientology, some of those other improvement techniques can actually prove their claims.  This is a completely different world from Scientology's "monopoly" of the past.

I'm not saying those practicing Scientology understand this, I don't think they do.  From what I see, they are still attempting to impose the same cult-thought-control on their membership.  While they don't have the power to impose disconnection, they are still designating a lot of people and many websites as "unacceptable to associate with".  They show signs of withdrawing into private, carefully censored, forums where any dissent is quickly shouted down and quashed.

But, without the monopoly, this kind of cult behavior will only repel potential new members and eventually disgust any intelligent, current members.  Scientologists escaping from the Church of Scientology, and seeing just more of the same abuse and attempted thought control occurring in the "Independent" movement will, for the most part, stay far, far away.

No, any group "promising" Scientology's false claims and exhibiting cult behavior simply cannot expand.  If they are any danger at all, it will only be to their small (and inevitably shrinking) group of "faithful followers".

Scientology's fangs have been drawn.  If it wants to continue at all, it will have to become open and honest.


  1. Nice summary of how the free market levels the playing field. I agree.

  2. Once again… a great post.
    I have read so much about how DM is the cause of all the problems in Scientology. I beg to differ.
    My first contact with Scientology was in 1978. At every turn I felt that I didn’t belong. I would call the local mission in a city that I just moved to and I got just a polite acknowledgement. It wasn’t until later that I read the notes the person wrote on me. It was not good at all. I never felt so put down by anyone. That was the totality of my experience. The truth was not what I was sold.
    I was searching and tried my best to have the square peg of Scientology fit into the round hole of my life. After many years I have learned that it wasn’t me.
    That is a good thing.

  3. Ensifer, what usually happens in the free market of cults is that people steal ideas from one cult to start another one. With Scientology, Werner Erhard stole stuff for Transcendental Meditation, while in Berkeley a former Scientologist named Lewis Bostwick founded the "Seminary of the Church of Divine Man" aka the Berkeley Psychic Institute in 1973. Bostwick did not keep the crazy paranoia; what he did was take the talk of Thetans and turn them into the traditional spirits and demons of 19th century Spiritualism while selling worthless "degrees" in psychic healing. So the religious structure of Scientology is there inside the BPI, just hidden behind the "spirits, snakes, and spiders."

    What we are seeing with Scientology now mostly does not happen with cults: the long zombie march to death. Most cults are dead a decade or less after the cult leader dies and they fade away quietly. Synanon fits that bill very well. Groups like the Hari Krishnas have stabilized into actual minor religions because they were based on an existing religion to begin with. Objectivism has stabilized into a pseudophilosophy, and is only as strong as the sales of Ayn Rand's books. Possibly Scientology without the totalitarian state of the Church can survive as a nieche movement, who knows?

    Criticism of the Berkeley Psychic Institute is at: The site owner, Jeffery Watts has a series of YouTube videos on the BPI under the YT handle PsychDoctorate.

  4. I've been talking about free markets curbing the worst abuses for years, so I'm very much in agreement with you here.

    -Red Pill on Topix

  5. "And this is why outside Scientology cannot institute the exact same abuses as the church."

    Can you tell me what a 'field scientologist' is? I have heard that some scientolgists live anonymously in the community - just as many Christians do. Is it possible that there are such scientologists living in the community and seeking to apply Miscavige-style ethics onto their neighbours? Because we've witnessed some very strange behaviour which seems to be textbook scientology of that ilk.

  6. Re: Field Scientologist

    A "Field Scientologist" is someone who practices Scientology but is not on staff. While there certainly are individuals out there practicing Scientology, including independents/FreeZone, I doubt too many would try to apply Hubbard's/Miscavige's more vicious punishments on their neighbors. That sort of thing is illegal.

    But some might, but then even some non-Scientologists do nasty things to their neighbors.

    If you have some specific examples, I could tell you if it sounded like "Scientology Ethics" or not.

    In any case, whoever is the victim of bad behavior should announce that they are documenting everything for the police -- and then do so.

  7. There seem to be quite a few folks who claim to have witnessed or experienced firsthand a number of unprovoked physical attacks from David Miscavige. Has no one ever given the guy a good swing back? I mean, c'mon, the dude's not exactly a six-and-a-half-foot-tall linebacker. I'm certainly not advocating violence here, but there IS such a thing as reasonable self-defense.

  8. Re: Reasonable self-defense

    You don't quite have the picture. David Miscavige is a sociopath, a bully and a big coward.

    First, he never goes anywhere without a crowd of sycophants and bodyguards. Any of his bootlickers would do anything to defend him from attack -- and he knows this. All bully/cowards do this.

    But second, and most important, he is a sociopath. You have no idea how much pleasure Miscavige gets from punishing, in the most degrading way, those who resist him. Imagine being forced to do the most disgusting jobs, being fed garbage, being forced to sleep in horrible conditions, for years and years -- Miscavige could make it worse than you imagine, and does.

    Those under his direct control know this, which is why allowing yourself to be beat up is better than fighting back.

    If you want to know why they don't just leave, you need to read about cult-mind-control.

  9. Any bets on what will happen with Miscavige - any chance he'll be brought to book, or will he abscond to Brazil?
    Since we all tend to cling to the familiar, I'm sure there will always be scientologists in some form; but has anyone ever commented on what Jung would call the 'feeling tone' of this group? LRH seemed to camp out on ugliness and violence - "the world is a terrible place. Only the strong survive" etc. The Abrahamic religions start with a garden; he starts with sadistic warlords. The pervasive attitude of "The beatings will stop when morale improves" is guaranteed to drive people mad.. Surely LRH, no fool even if a con, must have known that - I suspect sadistic tendencies right there.
    By the way, anyone ever notice Miscavige's resemblance to Josef Goebbels, (who was known as the "poison dwarf" behind his back)?

  10. My bet is on David Miscavige running as fast as his tiny, cowardly legs can. There is no "stand and fight" in Miscavige. He has his money, he already has his estates in various foreign countries, he's ready to run-run-run.

    While Miscavige is simple: he's stupid, cowardly and sociopathic, Hubbard is much more complex. The early Hubbard was much different from the later Hubbard.

    Hubbard showed genius, wisdom and kindness -- in addition to paranoia, cruelty and dishonesty. That is why so many people thought so highly of Hubbard, and others saw such evil -- he was all that, and more. Most True Believers cling to the writings and lectures of Early Hubbard and discount the abuse and cruelty of Late Hubbard as "not Ron" (with tons of excuses as to why is "wasn't Ron").

  11. Does that mean we're on our way to tens of thousands of Scientology denominations, the same way Christianity diversified after the Catholic Church's monopoly was broken?

  12. Re: Scientology schisms

    Theoretically, yes. There is not, and can never be, a consensus on what really is "Standard Scientology". See my earlier article on this. It seems that every Scientologist has a different idea on what constitutes "pure" Scientology.

    But I'm doubtful there will ever be "tens of thousands", because I don't see Scientology catching on. To gain any foothold in society, Scientology would have to deliver what was promised -- and it has never been able to do that.

    The best they've been able to do is make people "feel better", but that puts them in direct competition with every other self-improvement practice, religion and philosophy, with no advantage at all.

    But, yes, if there are 1,000 Scientology practitioners/groups, there will be 1,000 different definitions of "pure" Scientology.

  13. I think "feeling better" might be part of it, but more importantly is the network of new friends and connections, both personally and professionally, that someone entering Scientology starts to accumulate. Many Scientologists I knew while growing up only spent their time with other Scientologists, and had very few, if any WOG friends. Many, many Scientologists work for companies that are owned and run by other Scientologists. Many CoS Scientologists refuse to watch the news or care about what's going on in the world in order to avoid any "entheta." Real news to them is covered at COB events. Take a group of 20 Scientologists and ask them what they thought about the recent Primary Elections here in the US, and maybe 5 (if that) would have a real opinion or knowledge about it. Most Scientologists, at least the many that I knew, lived in a bubble world called Scientology. It was all about the latest release, or the upcoming Event, or what's going on within the Scientology community, or what Scientology celebrity is doing well and promoting Scientology publicly. The Real World to them is the illusion that they really don't take much interest in. So yeah, the Auditing and the "feeling better" is part of it, but more importantly, Scientologists stick with it mainly for group reasons, and the fear that if they were declared SP, they'd lose everything they worked for, including all of their friends and work connections. Very similar to gang mentality.

  14. Hmmm. Whatever will Tom Cruise do without his best friend?
    I have no animosity towards the various CoS celebs, tho they seem to prove the notion that movie star types are poorly educated and not terribly bright. Just wondering how those in the public eye will cover for DM when he vanishes. Could there be an Event announcing that he's gone to another galaxy?

  15. Re: When DM vanishes

    David Miscavige won't vanish. He will move his cult operations to another country, but he will continue to be "Source and Leader" of Scientology. Some Scientologists will follow him there. Any cult members who don't wake up will continue to believe in Miscavige and will continue to send him lots of money.

    That includes celebrities.

    His running away will be justified and excused just as Hubbard's was. It will be "important" that Miscavige's work continue in a "safe place, away from entheta".

    Don't expect Miscavige's cowardly run-and-hide to change anything in his current operations -- or abuses.

  16. @The good old dog

    Actually, yours is a slightly different question. I'm sure that the Scientology celebrities will react exactly like all the other Scientologists. Some will adhere to the Church of Scientology no matter what. Some will quietly leave and still try to practice Scientology. And the vast majority will wake up and continue their lives, sadder but wiser. I hope that many celebrities will speak up about the abuses of the cult.

  17. Re: "I hope that many celebrities will speak up about the abuses of the cult."

    I hope so too, but aren't they sheltered from this?

  18. Re: Celebrities

    Yes, they are supposed to be "sheltered" from the truth, but the truth is there, easy to find, easy to investigate. Paul Haggis found the truth and spoke out.

    I, personally, think anyone who was instrumental in getting people into Scientology have incurred a debt -- they need to make up the damage by speaking out and helping people get out or never get in.

  19. It is very interesting to see what happened to those independent scientologists who left in droves in 1982.

    I was one. We all got "orged" up and had all the materials the cofs had. One group even "borrowed' upper level material from an org so the tech could be "standard".

    Where are they now? Well without the confines and rigid structure of a real scientology org they all faded away. They all started out very enthusiastic and gung ho. I personally was involved with 4 AAC's including Santa Barbara and also with Bill Robertson.

    I think of those that are still alive 99% have just drifted away to enjoy a real life. Scientology is just a distant memory.

  20. @Martin Ruston

    Thanks for your addition. You are absolutely correct. Seeing what happened in 1982 is a good predictor for 2011.

  21. It seems that CoS commits a lot of slander. Has anyone tried sueing them? Success?

    Note: I realize they probably try to dig true, embarrasing non-sequiters up. And nothing one can do about that. But lies? Like Robert Vaughn Young being a neo-Nazi?

  22. I want more dramah and juicy details. Could you please get a spy in the inner sanctum, to amuse me with insights for Internet gossip? Kinda up to speed on most of the old stuff and it gets repetitive.

    Actually feel sort of guilty for getting off on the whole fiasco aspect of it, given that there are real people that were involved. But still. That's sort of how I react.

  23. Re: Slander

    From my viewpoint, it appears that the Church of Scientology only slanders people who don't have the money to sue them. Their million dollar lawyers would undoubtedly love to parade all the "confidential" confessions of any ex-member who tried to sue them.

  24. Re: Dramah

    LOL! Yeah, it gets pretty boring. Miscavige dare not do anything bold because he is Mr. Failure and Mr. Footbullet. He is running scared -- which really doesn't make for good drama.

    Unfortunately, I'm not predicting anything exciting coming up. The church has collapsed, but the various local churches will be slow to close. They'll hang on and hang on, but one by one they will close.

    The fa├žade Miscavige keeps propping up is getting very, very thin and very, very tattered -- and each event makes grander and grander claims of "success". Behind it is utter devastation. But nothing dramatic.

    The best we can hope for, for drama, is some well-known management exec or some big name celebrity leaving and telling all to the media. But I'm not holding my breath for that. The execs seem to "do a Marty" and the celebrities ... well, we'll see.

  25. Thanks for yet another intelligent and informed article, Bill!

  26. I am in general agreement. As a self-help business the cult has a lot of free market competition.

    However, the cult as a militant anti-psychiatry organization represents a continuing social threat particularly in developing countries.

    In places like India and St. Lucia the threat is significant. The Catholic Archbishop of Castries devoted the last third of his Easter Homily to denouncing infiltration of the island, which is 70% Catholic, by the Way To Happiness.

    Mental health professionals in India have pleaded with the government to counter the cult's agressive anti-psychology propganda.

    These countries and others are the target of detailed campaigns by OSA using primarily the Volunteer Ministers and increasingly The Way To Happiness, Youth For Human Rights International,Narconon, and Applied Scholastics.

    Scientology is not yet firmly established in these countries and so there are not yet legions of abused ex-cult members and no organized opposition such as that of Anonymous, and very little awareness on the part of local media and opinion makers.

    I suspect that as returns diminish in the developed world the focus will continue to shift to developing countries. The effort to counter the cult needs to continue in these areas.

  27. I had always heard about Scientology but never gave it more thought than any other religion until this girl I go to school with mentioned it to me. She said he cousin just got a job in Florida a year ago and when she moved there, started to become interested in Scientology. My friend's concern was that her cousin quit her job after only 3months and started working with the church and then stopped talking to her immediate family. My school friend says that her cousin only speaks to her now, and it is always about Scientology. So I started researching more about the history and anything else, I guess, about Scientology. I'm on information overload and can't quite get enough of churches such as scientology and cult mentality in general. It scares and fascinates me. Thanks for your blog, I enjoy it very much.

  28. @Athanasius

    You are quite right. We should not forget the danger that the Church of Scientology still poses. They still try to recruit, they still try to trap the unwary.

    Unless they fundamentally change their philosophy, I don't see them making any significant inroads in India. The Church of Scientology is greedy. They do nothing unless they can make money -- and lots of it. This philosophy runs counter to India's spiritual culture and history.

    The church's recent recruitment drives aimed at Africans, Aborigines and other "Third World" groups is obvious but rather meaningless. Where is the money that David Miscavige lusts for and requires so intensely?

    It is obvious that Miscavige is giving up on the "Developed World" and is going after people who, he thinks, haven't heard about Scientology's failures, lies, crimes and fraud. Perhaps he doesn't realize that the Third World has the Internet too.

    Yes, a few new people are still getting ensnared in Scientology's lies, but I have faith that Miscavige's wonderful ability to fail and the Internet's power to inform will destroy the Church of Scientology's recruitment efforts quite effectively.

  29. I'm also concerned about CoS inroads in the ThIrd World;( tho why they think there's money there shows I guess how cut off from reality they are) so I was encouraged to see an Anonymous blog from South Africa, dated last year as I recall, pointing out how Scientology had cuddled up to the Apartheid government in the past and warning fellow citizens that this was no fit 'religion' for them, after all their struggles. So Anonymous has reached that far.
    This is a white, middle class, American group not only in their membership but in their cultural thinking. I don't see it translating very well to other cultures with strong traditional values of their own.

  30. Hi Bill

    "He will move his cult operations to another country, but he will continue to be 'Source and Leader' of Scientology".

    I don't really see that happening. For a start, I don't know any Scns who see Miscavige as "source" - that role is still very firmly held by Hubbard.

    Miscavige is instead promoted as the man behind the growth of Scientolgoy. This is a huge problem for Miscavige since anyone who looks can see the reality, which is that it's in terminal decline.

    Miscavige tries to make up for this with glitzy new buildings (which then fall empty once rent-a-crowd have left after the opening).

    He also has for some reason not eased up on the intense regging that Scns have to contend with. I guess that's just his greed.

    Anyway, more and more Scns are realising the CoS is in decline, the Orgs are empty, and they are fed up with the regging. Then they look on the Internet and discover Miscavige is in reality a violent thug, and they have been supporting a cult with their hard-earned money. Hey presto, the spell is broken.

    Anyway, I digress. How will it end for him? I think he will hang on by his fingernails. I don't see him trying to run the CoS from a different country - he relies on this presence to enforce his will. If and when he leaves, it will be to a secret hideout without an extradition treaty, with enough money to hire assassins and bribe officials (as per LRH policy - see Responsibilites of Leaders).

  31. Re: "Source and Leader of Scientology"

    Well, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with calling David Miscavige "Source". But, let me point out, he has been the source of all the "new" stuff: The "Golden Age of Whatever", The Basics, The Congresses. Yes he still attributes the tech to Hubbard, but he, personally, has rewritten much of it to "correct" all the "errors".

    I think you are correct that most Scientologists are or will wake up as the collapse continues and Miscavige's abysmal record of failure becomes obvious even to the most self-blinded believer.

    Still, I stand by my prediction that, if/when Miscavige runs away, some Very True Believers will follow him and continue to support him.

  32. Hi Just Bill -
    I asked about field scientologists and am only just getting back to you. We have a group of people, at least one of whom has dianetics books, who are denying they are scientologists but who are working together to do fair game-type things to people. They are deeply into disconnecting family members from each other. They use harassment legislation (I'[m in the UK) and contacts in the police to prevent their targets talking to people. They have a preoccupation with making people look insane. They agree on a story and then all phone the police with a different slant to cause grief for the target. And they get very stressed when one accuses them of being scientologists. I could go on and on.
    The scary thing is that in the UK everyone 'knows' that scientology is an American thing. Therefore I am having zewro success with getting anyone to listen to me. When I show them news articles from around the world they're not interested.
    By the way, what do you understand by Hubbard's quote about 1984-style society with the 'secret application of scientology'.

  33. Re: "Scientologist's" fair gaming

    I'm not sure I understand exactly what's happening or how many victims there are, but what I said still applies.
    1. Document everything. This includes copies of everything received and everything sent. If appropriate, take photos, make recordings, etc. If false reports are being made to the police, I would think the victim would have every right to see, and respond, those reports.
    2. Inform the perpetrators that everything is being documented for the police.
    3. As much as possible, ensure you have witnesses.
    4. If appropriate, obtain the services of a solicitor or other legal advisor.

    Re: Hubbard's "1984" reference.

    I assume you are referring to his mention, during a lecture:
    "Did you ever read poor old George Orwell's 1984? Yes,yes, that's wonderful. That would be -- could be the palest imagined shadow of what a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with no remedy in existence."

    Hubbard fancied that his technologies could be used to control people, their minds, their behavior, their ability to think. He was saying that, if used secretly, it could create a totally controlled society.

    While such thought-control has certainly happened within the various Scientology groups, it actually was good old-fashioned, well-known cult tricks that created the control. Hubbard's technology had nothing to do with it.

  34. Thanks for that. You're absolutely right - it is old-fashioned mind tricks. Eg with the police, these people ring them and use innuendo to plant a stereotype in the officers'heads. Also we're in no doubt the police have been infiltrated. I'm slowly working my way through the police complaints process on an increasing number of complaints against the police. Scary thing is, the police professional standards depts have no qualms about lying and changing facts - or ignoring stuff. I've appealed and spelled out the inconsistencies to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and it has become clear to me that that organisation is also protecting naughty police officers. I've had three appeals back and am waiting for a fourth.
    The only good thing about all this is that I'm accumulating a lot of letters and lots of people are putting their heads in nooses.

    Legal advice is not possible as I haven't much cash, and also we've had our fingers badly burnt by two lawyers.

  35. Hi Just Bill

    I just recently took the leap and pulled the ever-so-thin blindfold off. Thanks to an email from Luis Garcia and Billy Toro. For years I observed a lot of the things you write about, but I didn't follow them through and make myself reconcile. I certainly did not dig deeper into the things that slapped me in the face so to speak, of which there were many. I learned reasonably well how to keep the aggressive predators off my back, relatively speaking. I stayed in, did services, and believed in a lot of the teachings, and for some reason that I don't understand now, I set those things that I didn't believe in off to the side. I am now investigating this mess, my mess, and am facing that this is clearly a cult, and I a stupid duped member. It is quite difficult to face up to but I'm finally facing the music, asking the hard questions. I am hugely disappointed with myself, and see how flawed my thinking was, how downright stupid I was. I've only just begun, and it looks pretty ugly at this point. But the future looks bright, and it is liberating to say the least.

    I'm posting this as a comment because I don't find an email for you. You don't even need to post this. I just want to say that what you write is incredibly insightful and helpful, if not painful, to see in the black and white after years (and years) of being in the "church". I am evaluating what I do and don't believe. I do find myself better off in quite a few ways, but as you can easily guess finances are NOT one of those improved areas. How difficult that part is to face up to!

    I am beginning to see it isn't just the current set of criminal dictator management that is the problem. It is way worse than that, and that is pretty bad. Thanks for your many writings.

    I don't yet understand how such criminal, human rights violations continue on. Especially when there are children involved, how can they be helped and freed from their prisons? Their parents have either abandoned their responsibility to these kids, or, are themselves too enslaved and controlled to get out. It is so wrong to know every day the Sea Org kids live in that unsafe environment.

    Sorry for the rambling comments, I'm a bit sleep deprived after reading late late at night days in a row.

    Thanks again

  36. Thanks for your compliments and feedback. I know how it feels, I was a Scientologist for over 30 years and I still ask myself how I could have been so gullible and blind.

    And I definitely know what you mean about the future looking bright and liberating. In looking back into the church, it was very dark and guilt-ridden -- still is for some. Being out is a new life.

    Good luck with your journey into truth.

    I have finally added a "Contact Me" page, so that others can email me without having to post something. Thanks for the nudge.

  37. Great post. I'm glad to hear about this take on things, as it helps calm a bit of the fear I built up in researching the dark side of the Church.

    I actually worked at a company headed by Scientologists for a while until I realized that by working there I was indirectly supporting the Church of Scientology's unethical practices. It was blogs like this one that helped me make my decision to leave. Keep on posting. :-)

  38. Oh My! I've not read any of these posts but I agree Bill!! Any off shoot implementing this kind of Scn is doomed to failure. Why did EST and Forum succeed? Because they got out early and disassociated themselves from Scn. Anything akin to Scn will be done with control. That is Scn. I mean, look at the TRs and Ojectives. All about CONTROL. Look at the TRs themselves, all about CONTROL. Scn is controlling and people do not want to be controlled. HELLO!!!

  39. Hiya Bill,

    One of the first things out of people's mouths when you give them a quick rundown of Scientology abuses is "ZOMG WHY IS THIS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN?"

    And I tell them, "That's a damn good question."

    Besides their million dollar lawyers, Scientology, Inc. has managed to continue operating its abusive rackets and scams with near impunity. Their web of used-car salesman gladhanders infests communities at all levels, perpetuating the sham that they're a benevolent, concerned member of society.

    Independents don't have that "religious" protection that allows Narconons to rip people off with flagrant quackery while officials ignore complaints.

    Presumably there are other independent groups besides MRology. They're going to have to split up the coterie of richies DM milks like aphids. Imagine if the Duggans blew!

    Scientology, Inc. has had 50 years to infiltrate and establish itself into the fabric of society. I suspect that the attendant bad publicity as it implodes will assure that NO group linked to L. Ron Hubbard will ever have much credibility with government at any level.

  40. Re: Milks like aphids.

    I love the phrase "milks like aphids".

    Several things:

    First, Scientology practitioners outside of the church will never be able to charge the massive prices that the church does. Competition ensures they won't.

    Second, the most money milked from the rich Scientologists is for "pure donations" -- like "Ideal Orgs", "Super Power", "IAS" and the like. Scientology outside of the church cannot do that since they are for-profit businesses. AND because one independent Scientologist won't be able to convince people that they must have some multi-million dollar building in order to function.

    So, we're not talking about big money here.

    I'd also like to clarify Scientology's influence in society.

    While it certainly was Scientology's intention to insinuate itself into the fabric of society, and Miscavige's Big Bogus Events bragged that they had done exactly that, it was all a lie and a series of abject failures.

    Scientology never had any broad influence in society. The "influential" societal puppets that Scientology had are very few and their connection to Scientology has not been good for their careers.

    As you say, the bad publicity surrounding Scientology pretty well ensures that any connected front-group, when exposed, will fail.

    The only way the organization known as the "Church of Scientology" can survive is to change its name and proclaim "we don't do that any more" -- like so many corrupt organizations before it. As it stands, its days are numbered.

  41. From reading the various Indie blogs and message boards, they are going to fade out over time if for no other reason than their ability to speak to someone who doesn't know their acronyms and jargon seems to be severely comprised.

    As a wog (I realize this is a derogatory term for me, but I kinda like it) even if I was interested in the subject (which I am since I read the various blogs and message boards) I am completely put off by the independants inability to not sound like a bunch of 18 year old techno geeks talking about "motherboards" and DRM(sorry, mom of said geeks)... When asking them a question, I am either inundated with gobbledegook acronyms, or the sound of crickets since they don't appear to be able to communicate outside of their circle..

    Which come to think of it, is probably why they cling to it, because everyone else looks at them like they are either nuts, or speaking a foreign language...

    Not such a great selling feature for a movement all about controlling others, and communicating effectively..

  42. @wytherin

    Very observant. While Scientology claims to be about "improving communication", the opposite is what is true. I remember, after I left Scientology, struggling to have a simple conversation until I unlearned Scientology's "communication technology". It is very ironic.

    While outside Scientology may experience some increase in numbers as people leave the church, that will be temporary. The problem is that the failure of Scientology to actually produce any of what they promise is now well documented. It doesn't matter which Scientology is practiced, the failures don't change. So, yes, even outside Scientology will ultimately shrink.

  43. Do you get the feeling that Indies are even really interested in "clearing the Planet"?

    Or just creating a safer, saner, yet familiar living situation for themselves?

    The tech not doing what Lron said it did will be a problem, but I see that not being an insurmoutable hurdle..

    Even in Christianity, there are people who believe that the Bible, as currently written, is the infallible word of God. Even when its pointed out that there are dozens of current translations and that for hundreds of years, the Bible itself was only seen by holy men of the church who had access to it. I am able to see that its possible things have been deleted or added to it, but accept its overarching themes. Yet that is considered heresy by others (even in my own church).

    I guess it comes down to a sense of 'rightness' or faith in that what is there is more right than wrong. I also tend to look at the Bible as a historical document, a snapshot of the times and some things not necessarily a rule still to be lived by today (I do eat meat on Fridays, for example, and me some bacon.)

    So how much of Scientology is going to be kept simply on Faith? Hard to know, but I don't see it growing if Indies cant communicate effectively with wogs. If it can't grow, it will die.. Or morph into something else..

    Glad to know you were able to break your addiction to the tech speak, I enjoy and have learned more on your website (found you from Hawkins blog) than I learned in several weeks of checking out other sites..

  44. @wytherin

    Thank you for your kind words.

    From what I see, the independents are only interested in re-creating the safe, Hubbard-was-so-totally-correct, environment of the Church of Scientology, but without the abuse and greed.

    This makes a safe harbor for Scientologists leaving the church. After all the failures, abuse, lies, greed, fraud, crimes and lies of the church, they can still believe in the "perfection" of Scientology.

    In this way, Scientology continues, as you say, on Faith. Hubbard's "pure" words can continue to be venerated as 100% Truth.

    This is the value of the independent movement. But it isn't powerful enough to keep the real world from impinging. They cannot keep their Believers from viewing the previously "forbidden" sites. As more information becomes available, most Scientologists will realize that they have been denying what was right in front of their eyes, they will see what really is true, and they will leave Scientology behind.

    Because Scientology claims to produce real results, faith just isn't enough. Those results don't appear and faith won't make them show up.

  45. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

    I am most worried about those young people who joined the Sea Org, and have little to no education, and no real idea of how the real world works. How will they cope? (Its the Mom in me)..

    I guess my new years wish is for them to have a softer landing, and that families torn apart, are able to be put back together.

  46. @wytherin

    Yes, I think for those children, raised in the Sea Org, this will be a very difficult time. But there are folks out here who will help them.

    I also hope for a good new year for all of them, and for all of us as well.

    It will be a good year.


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.