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.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

The Redefinitions of Scientology

A while ago, I wrote about the false claims of Scientology, especially outside of the Church of Scientology.  One practitioner claimed he was producing "Real live OTs!"  I object to fraud and deception, and this claim certainly lands squarely in that category.

At least, within the Church of Scientology, they've stopped promising the "Clear" as Hubbard described and stopped promising the "OT" that Hubbard defined.  See The Disappearing States of Clear and OT.

In that "Real live OTs!" article I urged Scientology practitioners to stop promising results they could not deliver.   But Scientology practitioners still promise the Grade Chart results that they can't and won't deliver.

Recent discussions amongst Scientologists make me think that this fraud and deception may change and the promises will follow the current trend in Scientology of redefining the expected results until they don't promise anything at all.

We may soon see Scientology practitioners changing the Ability Gained of Grade 0 from "Ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject" to "A person who feels better about communication."

Grade 1 will change from "Ability to recognize the source of problems and make them vanish" to "A person who feels better about problems."

And so forth.

Why do I think this?  I've been following the raging debates on Leaving Scientology, Marty's blog and Scientology-Cult and I have seen Scientology True Believers come to an interesting consensus.

Scientologists seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of changing the definition of OT from Hubbard's:
A being who is cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, form and thought, subjectively and objectively
A being who does things!
In the discussions and articles, this is the new definition of OT.  You start a new business?  You're an "OT"!  You volunteer down at the local shelter?  You're an "OT"!   It was even mentioned that moving your hand is the act of an "OT"!

What is the difference, then, between a "wog" starting a business and a Scientology OT starting a business?  The Scientology OT is aware that they are being OT!  And they are "being OT" because of Scientology.

They don't do anything particularly exceptional, but they are doing it as an OT!  That makes all the difference -- to a Scientologist.

And there you have it!  That totally solves the problem of Scientology never producing an OT as Hubbard defined it.  It solves the problem of Hubbard's last years, where he was sick, in pain, hiding from the law and betrayed by those he trusted.  It solves the problem for all those OTs that didn't get the powers and abilities promised.

Just redefine "OT" and you're good to go.

Well, I have to admit that does come under the heading of "don't promise what you can't deliver".  If you promise nothing, you're totally covered.


  1. Finally, a way for those who believe to finally stand up proudly and say "I have OT abilities! I do things!"

  2. Damn it! I'm not an OT, I never do anything!

  3. Hilarious post. This should immunize some people against the New Scientology movement.

    Hey, maybe the New Wage practitioners Oprah loves to have on her show should collectively sue New Scientology for stealing their idea: don't promise anything specific but just imply that you can make people doers, movers, shakers, uber-beings of Light.

    But then, Scientology would sue the New Wage back for borrowing the CoS idea that any lack of results is the fault of the consumer him- or herself. If you can't cure yourself of cancer or make millions, well, that's your choice! Why such evil intentions?

    All in all, its a big circle you-know-what of con artists/sociopaths.

    I just read the Bent Corydon book. What a hoot to find out that Aleister Crowley of all people called Hubbard a conman in 1948. That was worth the whole book! I should have read it in '87 or whenever it came out. I was a fool, but also I must have been very afraid if I read it I'd lose those who were my family at the time.

    Now I realize I had little to lose, anyway. And reading about auditing in Corydon's book I remembered that the simple act of being asked questions and having MY answers accepted in a compassionate, non-judgemental manner actually helped shatter the brainwashing I'd endured in my family as a child.

    Ironic? Spiritually meaningful? Who knows. Maybe I'll find out when I die--or not.

    Corydon, imo, does a very good job at explaining how dianetics theory and practice (which LRH apparently lifted from this brilliant Polish scientist's theories) can be beneficial, but how CoS used it to trap people. You can get a full pdf, very easy download, by going to Why We Protest forum, btw.

  4. It's really hard to not become cynical in the face of people harboring the ridiculous notion that they CAN fly things with their mind but WON'T because that would "end" the game.

    I personally found out fairly quickly that "OTs" were normal people albeit condescending sometimes. No matter how friendly they could appear, they were always holding up the pretense they were special. The admiration they got from the ignorant neophytes didn't help their inflated ego.

  5. "There you have it!" Another important article by Just Bill.

  6. How come?
    If CoS is not going to promise anything at all,
    Who or what will save us?
    Spider Man?

  7. The key point about Scientology, and about Scientology's true believers, is that they must spend so much time creating, finding, telling and working on excuses.

    They can't just say, "This is Scientology and here are the results." Instead, they must say, "This might be Scientology but the reasons people don't get the promised results are ...".

    And the reasons are very numerous. After all, there are a lot of failures to justify.

    Why can't they just say, "This is Scientology and here is what we actually can accomplish"? However small that list is compared to Hubbard's promises, at least they could then stop having to excuse failure.

    As someone once said, it is much better to under-promise and over-deliver than the reverse.

    But there is Scientology, blatantly over-promising and consistently under-delivering. And then they provide a ton of excuses. Not a good business model.

  8. Re: Who or what will save us?

    LOL! I vote for Batman.

    I know you are being funny, but this is one of the big reasons Scientologists can't give up Scientology. If Hubbard can't save them, who will? It's very scary.

  9. @Songbird

    As long as Scientologists can make money by selling false promises, what incentive is there to tell the truth? Unfortunately, in many ways, honesty doesn't pay as well as bogus promises.

    While most people are aware of the Church of Scientology's lies, the independent Scientologists claim to have "eliminated all the church's abuses". So I feel their false promises are even more egregious.

  10. Just Bill

    You are soooo goood!


    Can you wrgit9 about Past Life?

  11. Thanks!

    Re: Past lives

    Maybe, if I can think of something interesting/enlightening about it.

  12. Just Bill,

    Marty says, as his "wrap up" to the whole "OT Powers" debate:

    What do claims, representations, and promises have to do with it? Not a blessed thing. Just like any other life endeavor, if you reach for it you might achieve it. What is it? It is whatever you consider it to be and whatever you consequently discover it to be. If you see it in another, maybe you’ll try what that other did to achieve it. If you enjoy pursuing it, and you achieve a little higher ground while doing so perhaps you’ll continue pursuing it. And maybe one day you’ll find it.

    Have you ever read anything as vague and mush-mouthed as that? I guess that's the long-winded version of: Whatever!

  13. @Arthur

    Sounds like Marty is finally getting the idea that promising "Release", "Clear" and "OT" and delivering "I feel better" isn't really very honest. Is he now promising "if you reach for it you might achieve it".

    That's still a bit too much "you must believe" for my taste but I think it's a step in the right direction.

  14. Just Bill

    I am in confution about past lives can you wrigth about it?

  15. Re: Past lives

    I'm thinking about it. Do you have any specific questions?

  16. Re: Past lives

    yes - Is it real or our imagantion?

  17. Re: Past lives

    As I like to answer to this kind of question: "Yes"

    Meaning "yes, it is real or our imagination."

    I'll probably write something up. This question has come up before.

    I was very interested in this subject before Scientology and collected a lot of information. My own belief is that, yes, we have lived before. I couldn't prove it, but my own experiences and what I found appear to validate it.

    However, that does not mean I agree with Hubbard's version of things. He claimed the physical universe is four quadrillion years old. He spouted a lot of stuff about "space opera" incidents, "theta traps", "Galactic Confederation" and so on and on and on.

    So, if your question is purely, "Do we have past lives?" I believe we do, but have no proof. If your question was, "Is Hubbard's version of past lives true?" I sincerely doubt it, but also with no proof.

    Yes, I really should do up an article about this.

  18. Just Bill

    My question "is Hubbard`s version of past lives true"?

    when some scintologest tallk about "space opera" incidents etc... to me is science fiction crap Vs "I have a strog feelingI was in NY city befor this life time"

  19. P.S

    Or "I was a qeene in ny past lives"

    But when a SO reg told me LRH is incarnation of Bodah" I realy dont know naw how is Dali Lama?

  20. Happened upon a “Statuses and Benefits” Church of Scientology brochure that had me laughing myself silly.

    For a “Legion of Honor” donation of $1,000,000, the donor will be “first in line for Super Power auditing when released.”

    For a “Legion of OT” donation of $5,000,000, the donor will be “first in line for Super Power auditing when released.”

    For a “Legion of Meritorious” donation of $7,500,000, the donor will be “first in line for Super Power auditing when released.”

    For a “Master Legion of Honor” donation of $12,000,000, the donor will be “first in line for Super Power auditing when released.”

    So, Bill, my question: If one person donates $1,000,000, another donates $5,000,000, another $7,500,000, and another $12,000,000, who gets to be first in line??

    Possible scenarios:
    “Let’s draw straws.”
    “No, let’s do rock, paper, scissors.”
    “I gave more than you guys did, so I should go first.”
    “I say we let Davey decide.”
    “I should have given just $1000 and settled for the Super Power t-shirt.”

    Yes, you really DO get a Super Power t-shirt for a $1000-or-more donation!


  21. Re: Is Hubbard's version of past lives true?

    Highly doubtful. Very knowledgeable scientists have estimated that the universe is between 12 and 14 billion years ago. This will undoubtedly change by a few billion as they make more and more accurate measurements.

    Hubbard proclaimed the universe was four quadrillion years old. I'm going with scientists.

    Hubbard also specifically located volcanoes on Earth 75 million years ago that simple geology shows could not have existed there at that time. I'm going with geologists.

    To put it bluntly, Hubbard made it up without much research.

  22. Just Bill

    Thank you for your replay.and please please do up an article about this.

  23. @Status' and benefits:

    One benefit bestowed on someone who gives 1,000,000 or more to the Super Power project, besides getting to be "first in line" to receive Super Power, is that they get a special discount of 50% the normally requested donation for all intensives of super power.

    You give them a million bucks and they still have the gall to make you ante up more to receive the rundown!!

    Hopefully, one of the Super Power rundowns rehabilitates the persons ability to do simple math.

  24. Another great article by Just Bill. Thanks!

    ~ Mary McConnell

  25. You realise that you are a part of a cult right?

    Snap out of the blinkers man.

    Read some books.

    Take a look at websites like

    Free your mind...

  26. Re: "You realise that you are a part of a cult right?"

    It is doubtful that those who actually are part of the Cult of Scientology will read your question, but if they did, they would deny Scientology is a cult anyway -- and then label you a "Suppressive Person", so not much is going to happen.

  27. @JustBill

    I think the comment above yours was one of the collective's Keyboard Warriors who didn't bother to read your site, but rather saw "Scientologist" in your URL and stopped by to try and warn you.

    6/10 for good intentions
    0/10 for execution

  28. After 60 years it should be obvious to anyone paying attention that Scientology Clears and OTs have no special powers or abilities whatsoever.

    They wear glasses, have accidents, get colds, die from cancer, commit suicide, murder, get divorced, have mental breakdowns, and suffer from the same financial struggles as the general population. As far as having soaring IQs how many Scientology Clears have won a Nobel Peace Prize? How many Scientology Clear superstar athletes are there? And if Clears can compute in seconds what the average person needs 30 minutes or more, where are all the Clear chess champions and mathematicians?

    As none of the claims made by L. Ron Hubbard have ever been demonstrated we can only conclude that the state of Clear as originally advertised has not been achieved. It’s a con. To handle this “discrepancy” the CoS has recently undertaken two strategies:

    1. It has lowered the bar regarding the definition of Clear. It did this because it was becoming increasing difficult for management to keep up the façade that Clears and OTs had the promised superpowers. So while the new vapid and meaningless definition of Clear was more truthful it was certainly not changed out of a sense of honesty. I also suspect that the Church lowered the bar because many disappointed Scientologists were demanding their money back. It was a smart move to avoid litigation. If you don’t promise anything specific it’s hard to be sued for breach of promise.

    I also suspect that the newer Scientologists with internet access were starting to look for proof. Think about it; if you had invested the necessary time, effort, and money to achieve the state of Clear wouldn’t you want a little evidence? After all isn’t the scientific method based on observable evidence? Does the new bland definition of Clear make for good advertising copy?

    2. It has openly admitted that the reason Scientologists don’t have the superpowers promised by LRH is because they were poorly trained, that is, the books and material they were using for years were transcribed and recorded incorrectly. People were not trained properly and that’s why they don’t have special powers. This lets the Church off the hook regarding the promised superpowers. The CoS claims the problem has now been fixed but members must re-do their training at their own expense. This way the Church doubles its money and delays the inevitable conclusion that the “tech” simply doesn’t work. Does the admission that the original training was flawed inspire confidence in the Scientology organization?

    Think about all the people since 1950 that you consider truly great: Muhammad Ali, John Lennon, Thomas Edison, Wayne Gretzky, Andy Warhol, Ronald Reagan, Steven Spielberg, Warren Buffett, Bob Dylan, Oprah Winfrey, Marshall McLuhan, Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, to name a few . . . were any of these people Clears? Not one. In fact not one Clear has achieved greatness. Not one.

    So there are no Scientology Clears as originally defined in DMSMH and the new watered-down and unappealing definition is far too vague for a so-called science. Would you give hundreds of thousands of dollars to a bungling organization to achieve a “highly desirable state where you can be yourself?” I certainly wouldn’t. And with the exorbitant prices the Church is now asking I think many people are also looking elsewhere to improve themselves.

    Add to this the recent high-profile books written by ex-members, the protests from Anonymous, the hundreds of videos on the internet showing Scientologists acting like criminal a**holes, and the CoS is clearly in trouble. It’s the Church’s own fault. It pulled it in.

  29. R.E. think about all the people since 1950 that you consider truly great: There are more Jewish people on this list than Scientology Clears.


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.