I'm totally fed up with Blogger. It seems to just get worse and worse, month by month.
People are telling me that they can't read my blog, can't post comments and sometimes can't do anything at all. Even I'm having trouble getting things done.
So, I'm moving Ask the Scientologist over to WordPress.
Unfortunately, some silly True Believer has stolen my preferred URL for Scientology propaganda, so I have to use a different URL.
I'm in the process of moving, so it really isn't fully set up but, for now, I've mirrored all the old articles and comments over there. You can leave comments there now.
You can still ask questions and leave comments here as well for the time being.
The new address is http://theRealAskTheScientologist.wordpress.com/.
I should have it set up the way I want in a week or so.
Thanks to everyone for their patience.
Bill
-
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Scientology Logic™
I have often sarcastically referred to "Scientology Logic™" when discussing various statements and arguments made by the Church of Scientology and Scientology's true believers. It is very true that Scientology's version of "logic" is very, very strange, but what you might not know is that Scientology Logic is deliberately built into the Scientology belief system itself by L. Ron Hubbard.
Note that I am not talking here about how logical or illogical Hubbard's actual "technology" is. I am talking about the actual "logic" mechanisms themselves that exist and are used throughout Scientology.
Note, also, that this "logic" exists inside Scientology and only rarely shows up on the outside. This is why discussing Scientology with a Scientologist can be so weird.
Technically, Scientology Logic is made up of a number of logical fallacies which Hubbard used extensively in his lectures and writings.
Here is a partial list:
Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is the argument that a person judged to be an authority verifies that the statement is true -- therefore it must be true.
In Scientology's case, the authority is, of course, L. Ron Hubbard. Scientology claims that all their "solutions" are "highly effective". What is the basis of their claims? "Ron said so".
When the raw facts show their "solutions" are failures, it is quickly agreed by all Scientologists involved to cover the failures up, because "Ron said his solutions were highly effective".
They won't look any further for any facts or hard evidence because "they don't need to, Ron said it, so it's true". This is the absolute, bedrock foundation of Scientology: If L. Ron Hubbard said it, then it is completely true.
While this theme of "Hubbard's Infallibility" crops up in Hubbard's teachings from the very beginning, it became cast in stone with his infamous "Keeping Scientology Working" (KSW) policy letter. In that policy, Hubbard denied that anyone else had contributed anything of value to Scientology and that he, and he alone, had created this "miraculous tech" that was "100% workable". From then on, it became a High Crime for any Scientologist to deny Hubbard's perfection.
In any disagreement between Scientologists, the one who can find the best L. Ron Hubbard quote to support their side is automatically the winner. No logic is ever applied.
As non-church Scientologists discover how many of Ron's statements have been irrefutably debunked, they struggle to fit that into Scientology's Absolutism. The most popular approach is to label all of Ron's lies as "allegories, not to be taken literally." This, however, puts them on very shaky ground as more and more of Scientology's "truths" become "allegories".
In an odd and completely bizarre twist to this illogic, some Scientologists will insist that, if L. Ron Hubbard didn't say something, it isn't true. So, for instance, because Hubbard never talked about the dangers and effects of asbestos, there is no danger or bad effects from breathing asbestos.
Ad Hominem
This logical fallacy attempts to use personal attacks to discredit the source of contrary evidence.
This was, by far, Hubbard's favorite and most effective logical fallacy and has become woven throughout Scientology's belief system.
In Scientology, anyone possessing and disseminating any facts that are contrary to Hubbard's words is automatically "evil". This is one "truth" that is hammered into Scientologists again and again throughout their studies.
Even in its press releases, the Church of Scientology carefully refers to the Scientology whistle-blowers as "apostates" -- and they do intend all the negative connotations of that word: "traitor", "heretic", "untrustworthy", etc. The outside Scientologists aren't much better, refering to critics as "haters" and worse.
Because they are labelled "evil" by Scientology, any source of contrary information is automatically "invalid" and any statements coming from that source must be automatically and quickly discarded lest one become "contaminated" by it.
This automatic, built-in ad hominem attack is marvellous to behold. One "bad" word and the Scientologist immediately shuts down and runs away, never to accept any data from that source again.
Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
In Scientology, this follows directly from both the ad hominem and the appeal to authority fallacies, above.
Hubbard has assured his faithful followers that anyone who dares to criticize him or Scientology is guilty of horrendous crimes "for which they could be arrested." Hubbard even instructed his secret police to dig up or manufacture evidence of crimes on every critic -- and they have done so with enthusiasm. The church's attempts to frame their critics for crimes they did not commit are quite well documented.
Scientologists completely believe this characterization of Scientology critics. Given the allegations of such crimes, Scientologists automatically reject all criticisms of Hubbard and Scientology from any source. No logic required.
In a more generic form, Scientologists pretty much distrust any source that isn't L. Ron Hubbard (or, in the church, David Miscavige).
Straw Man Fallacy
A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted
Scientologists work very hard to pervert and obfuscate the very simple and clear messages that the Scientology critics and whistle-blowers present.
Any criticism of one of Scientology's "solutions" is misrepresented by Scientology as an attempt to halt all efforts to help anyone. You will often find Scientologists claiming that critics' messages are "No one can be helped" and "All help is bad" -- but no serious Scientology critic ever said that.
Red Herring
The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of sabotaging a fox hunt by using smoked herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry. It is simply an attempt to distract one from the current subject.
Hubbard famously said, regarding attacks against himself or Scientology, "Make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail. Always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Don't ever defend. Always attack."
Because of this policy, Scientologists work very hard to distract any discussion away from the lies, crimes and abuses of the Church of Scientology and onto anything else. "Look over there! Look how bad those other people are, over there!"
This is the primary motivation for the creation of many of Scientology's front groups such as CCHR, "Youth for Human Rights", etc.
As a bonus for Scientology, the general public tends to think that any organization "promoting Human Rights", for instance, is unlikely to be violating those exact same Human Rights.
Hasty Generalization Fallacy
A hasty generalisation draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case.
This is the most common response by a Scientologist when confronted with Scientology's consistent failure to deliver any of its promised results. Scientologists will inevitably say, "I got wonderful gains from Scientology!" This ignores the primary point that none of these "wonderful gains" were what was actually promised -- or even expected.
This also ignores all the other times when Scientology didn't deliver any "gains" at all to the Scientologist. It is very much like the compulsive gambler who remembers every time they won some money but ignores the huge amount of money they've lost.
After all that time, all that effort and all that money, instead of the promised miraculous results, the Scientologist once or twice got "wonderful gains" that are only a memory now. From those few, fleeting moments, the Scientologist makes the very general statement that "Scientology works!"
The situation isn't necessarily that illogical people are drawn to Scientology. The situation is that bad logic is intrinsic to the core teachings of Scientology and that not enough people are educated so as to recognize this when they run into it. Once someone has accepted the core teachings of Scientology, they have automatically accepted all of Hubbard's illogics as well.
(Yes, such an education would help people as consumers and as voters.)
-
Note that I am not talking here about how logical or illogical Hubbard's actual "technology" is. I am talking about the actual "logic" mechanisms themselves that exist and are used throughout Scientology.
Note, also, that this "logic" exists inside Scientology and only rarely shows up on the outside. This is why discussing Scientology with a Scientologist can be so weird.
Technically, Scientology Logic is made up of a number of logical fallacies which Hubbard used extensively in his lectures and writings.
Here is a partial list:
Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is the argument that a person judged to be an authority verifies that the statement is true -- therefore it must be true.
In Scientology's case, the authority is, of course, L. Ron Hubbard. Scientology claims that all their "solutions" are "highly effective". What is the basis of their claims? "Ron said so".
When the raw facts show their "solutions" are failures, it is quickly agreed by all Scientologists involved to cover the failures up, because "Ron said his solutions were highly effective".
They won't look any further for any facts or hard evidence because "they don't need to, Ron said it, so it's true". This is the absolute, bedrock foundation of Scientology: If L. Ron Hubbard said it, then it is completely true.
While this theme of "Hubbard's Infallibility" crops up in Hubbard's teachings from the very beginning, it became cast in stone with his infamous "Keeping Scientology Working" (KSW) policy letter. In that policy, Hubbard denied that anyone else had contributed anything of value to Scientology and that he, and he alone, had created this "miraculous tech" that was "100% workable". From then on, it became a High Crime for any Scientologist to deny Hubbard's perfection.
In any disagreement between Scientologists, the one who can find the best L. Ron Hubbard quote to support their side is automatically the winner. No logic is ever applied.
As non-church Scientologists discover how many of Ron's statements have been irrefutably debunked, they struggle to fit that into Scientology's Absolutism. The most popular approach is to label all of Ron's lies as "allegories, not to be taken literally." This, however, puts them on very shaky ground as more and more of Scientology's "truths" become "allegories".
In an odd and completely bizarre twist to this illogic, some Scientologists will insist that, if L. Ron Hubbard didn't say something, it isn't true. So, for instance, because Hubbard never talked about the dangers and effects of asbestos, there is no danger or bad effects from breathing asbestos.
Ad Hominem
This logical fallacy attempts to use personal attacks to discredit the source of contrary evidence.
This was, by far, Hubbard's favorite and most effective logical fallacy and has become woven throughout Scientology's belief system.
In Scientology, anyone possessing and disseminating any facts that are contrary to Hubbard's words is automatically "evil". This is one "truth" that is hammered into Scientologists again and again throughout their studies.
Even in its press releases, the Church of Scientology carefully refers to the Scientology whistle-blowers as "apostates" -- and they do intend all the negative connotations of that word: "traitor", "heretic", "untrustworthy", etc. The outside Scientologists aren't much better, refering to critics as "haters" and worse.
Because they are labelled "evil" by Scientology, any source of contrary information is automatically "invalid" and any statements coming from that source must be automatically and quickly discarded lest one become "contaminated" by it.
This automatic, built-in ad hominem attack is marvellous to behold. One "bad" word and the Scientologist immediately shuts down and runs away, never to accept any data from that source again.
Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
In Scientology, this follows directly from both the ad hominem and the appeal to authority fallacies, above.
Hubbard has assured his faithful followers that anyone who dares to criticize him or Scientology is guilty of horrendous crimes "for which they could be arrested." Hubbard even instructed his secret police to dig up or manufacture evidence of crimes on every critic -- and they have done so with enthusiasm. The church's attempts to frame their critics for crimes they did not commit are quite well documented.
Scientologists completely believe this characterization of Scientology critics. Given the allegations of such crimes, Scientologists automatically reject all criticisms of Hubbard and Scientology from any source. No logic required.
In a more generic form, Scientologists pretty much distrust any source that isn't L. Ron Hubbard (or, in the church, David Miscavige).
Straw Man Fallacy
A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted
Scientologists work very hard to pervert and obfuscate the very simple and clear messages that the Scientology critics and whistle-blowers present.
Any criticism of one of Scientology's "solutions" is misrepresented by Scientology as an attempt to halt all efforts to help anyone. You will often find Scientologists claiming that critics' messages are "No one can be helped" and "All help is bad" -- but no serious Scientology critic ever said that.
Red Herring
The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of sabotaging a fox hunt by using smoked herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry. It is simply an attempt to distract one from the current subject.
Hubbard famously said, regarding attacks against himself or Scientology, "Make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail. Always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Don't ever defend. Always attack."
Because of this policy, Scientologists work very hard to distract any discussion away from the lies, crimes and abuses of the Church of Scientology and onto anything else. "Look over there! Look how bad those other people are, over there!"
This is the primary motivation for the creation of many of Scientology's front groups such as CCHR, "Youth for Human Rights", etc.
As a bonus for Scientology, the general public tends to think that any organization "promoting Human Rights", for instance, is unlikely to be violating those exact same Human Rights.
Hasty Generalization Fallacy
A hasty generalisation draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case.
This is the most common response by a Scientologist when confronted with Scientology's consistent failure to deliver any of its promised results. Scientologists will inevitably say, "I got wonderful gains from Scientology!" This ignores the primary point that none of these "wonderful gains" were what was actually promised -- or even expected.
This also ignores all the other times when Scientology didn't deliver any "gains" at all to the Scientologist. It is very much like the compulsive gambler who remembers every time they won some money but ignores the huge amount of money they've lost.
After all that time, all that effort and all that money, instead of the promised miraculous results, the Scientologist once or twice got "wonderful gains" that are only a memory now. From those few, fleeting moments, the Scientologist makes the very general statement that "Scientology works!"
The situation isn't necessarily that illogical people are drawn to Scientology. The situation is that bad logic is intrinsic to the core teachings of Scientology and that not enough people are educated so as to recognize this when they run into it. Once someone has accepted the core teachings of Scientology, they have automatically accepted all of Hubbard's illogics as well.
(Yes, such an education would help people as consumers and as voters.)
-
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Scientology: It's All About Threats and Fear
As the implosion of the Church of Scientology continues, I have had more contact with newly-out Scientologists than ever before. And I have noticed that one of the common characteristics of newly-out Scientologists is fear.
This isn't just fear of what the church will do to them because they just left, it is the reaction to living for years under the constant threats, explicit and implicit, from the Church of Scientology. After a while, it just becomes normal to live in fear.
Once Scientology has convinced a person that "Scientology has all the answers" and that "Scientology is the only road to 'Total Freedom'", the church spends the rest of the time threatening to deny the Scientologist that "only road out". This threat hangs over the head of every Scientologist. This is the basis of the church's power and control.
(It really is ironic that the Church of Scientology's power comes from the threat to take away that which it never had the power to give in the first place.)
As a Scientologist, you must follow all of the church's rules, requirements, demands and dictates or you will be denied Scientology services. In the "Introduction to Scientology Ethics" book there is a list of "High Crimes" for which a Scientologist will be declared a "Suppressive Person", and kicked out. If you carefully review that list of High Crimes, you will quickly realize that many of these "crimes" are so very, very vague, that anyone could be found guilty of violating them.
And, indeed, many Scientologists are accused and found guilty under these High Crimes when they have done nothing that normal society would consider wrong.
Usually, a Scientologist is "declared suppressive" as a result of something Hubbard made up called a "Committee of Evidence" (or "CommEv"). A CommEv is an amazing bit of Hubbard-created injustice:
And the punishments for being found guilty can be severe. If one is "declared suppressive" and kicked out, all other Scientologists are required to disconnect from the "suppressive". This can result in divorce, total separation from family and friends, loss of one's job and more. As Scientologists usually associate with, work with and work for other Scientologists, such disconnection can be devastating.
But there is more. According to Hubbard, someone "declared suppressive" may be "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed". The laws, morals and ethics of normal society no longer protect the declared person from all manner of attacks from other Scientologists.
If one desires to "work oneself back into good standing", the road is long and degrading and the chances of being declared again are pretty high.
Under Scientology "Ethics", all Scientologists are required to spy on all other Scientologists and report any "incorrect" behavior. If another Scientologist they know is found to be "suppressive", it is likely that they, too, will be punished for "not reporting the crimes". Therefore, many Scientologists do spy and do report on other Scientologists.
Even in the supposedly "confidential" auditing sessions, Scientologists are not safe from the spying eyes of the church. Everything they say is written down and often recorded, to be reviewed by others. At any time, the Scientologist could be ordered to a "Security Check" or "SecCheck" where everything they say will be reported to the "Ethics Officer" for evaluation and, perhaps, punishment. There are few Scientologists who have not felt the dread upon hearing the phrase "Report to Ethics".
As you can see, if a Scientologist lives in almost constant fear, they have every reason to feel that way.
And don't doubt for an instant that the church fully understands the power that it holds over all Scientologists. Scientologists believe that Scientology is the only way to rise to the higher levels of existence and if they are kicked out of the church, they will be doomed to horrible suffering and degradation forever. With this threat of expulsion and disconnection, the Church of Scientology can and does demand more and more. More money, more time, more participation, more obedience. For those who believe the church controls their future salvation forever, there is no choice but to comply.
Luckily, the news that the Church of Scientology's power has been broken is filtering in to the believers. The fear is easing and, with it, the church's power to force obedience is fading. The church doesn't know what to do about it. Without this constant fear, they no longer have the same absolute control over their Scientologists. Oh, dear!
-
This isn't just fear of what the church will do to them because they just left, it is the reaction to living for years under the constant threats, explicit and implicit, from the Church of Scientology. After a while, it just becomes normal to live in fear.
Once Scientology has convinced a person that "Scientology has all the answers" and that "Scientology is the only road to 'Total Freedom'", the church spends the rest of the time threatening to deny the Scientologist that "only road out". This threat hangs over the head of every Scientologist. This is the basis of the church's power and control.
(It really is ironic that the Church of Scientology's power comes from the threat to take away that which it never had the power to give in the first place.)
As a Scientologist, you must follow all of the church's rules, requirements, demands and dictates or you will be denied Scientology services. In the "Introduction to Scientology Ethics" book there is a list of "High Crimes" for which a Scientologist will be declared a "Suppressive Person", and kicked out. If you carefully review that list of High Crimes, you will quickly realize that many of these "crimes" are so very, very vague, that anyone could be found guilty of violating them.
And, indeed, many Scientologists are accused and found guilty under these High Crimes when they have done nothing that normal society would consider wrong.
Usually, a Scientologist is "declared suppressive" as a result of something Hubbard made up called a "Committee of Evidence" (or "CommEv"). A CommEv is an amazing bit of Hubbard-created injustice:
- The "Convening Authority" who calls for the CommEv is the same person who wants you found guilty.
- The Convening Authority gets to choose whoever he or she wants for the "members" of the CommEv who will sit in judgement of you. Anyone.
- The Convening Authority writes the charges and the Scientologist is, pretty much, presumed guilty unless he or she can produce convincing evidence of innocence on every point.
- There are no rules of evidence -- anything can be used as "evidence" against the accused and it is up to the committee members to accept or reject evidence on whatever basis they choose. No one is required to verify that the "evidence" is actually valid.
- The accused may not have a lawyer or any other assistance in defending him or herself.
- There is no stipulation that the accused can see the evidence or the accusers and challenge them.
- The accused is not required to be present during testimony against him or her and, in fact, is often deliberately excluded. These days, the entire CommEv is often held without the accused even being present.
But there is more. According to Hubbard, someone "declared suppressive" may be "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed". The laws, morals and ethics of normal society no longer protect the declared person from all manner of attacks from other Scientologists.
If one desires to "work oneself back into good standing", the road is long and degrading and the chances of being declared again are pretty high.
Under Scientology "Ethics", all Scientologists are required to spy on all other Scientologists and report any "incorrect" behavior. If another Scientologist they know is found to be "suppressive", it is likely that they, too, will be punished for "not reporting the crimes". Therefore, many Scientologists do spy and do report on other Scientologists.
Even in the supposedly "confidential" auditing sessions, Scientologists are not safe from the spying eyes of the church. Everything they say is written down and often recorded, to be reviewed by others. At any time, the Scientologist could be ordered to a "Security Check" or "SecCheck" where everything they say will be reported to the "Ethics Officer" for evaluation and, perhaps, punishment. There are few Scientologists who have not felt the dread upon hearing the phrase "Report to Ethics".
As you can see, if a Scientologist lives in almost constant fear, they have every reason to feel that way.
And don't doubt for an instant that the church fully understands the power that it holds over all Scientologists. Scientologists believe that Scientology is the only way to rise to the higher levels of existence and if they are kicked out of the church, they will be doomed to horrible suffering and degradation forever. With this threat of expulsion and disconnection, the Church of Scientology can and does demand more and more. More money, more time, more participation, more obedience. For those who believe the church controls their future salvation forever, there is no choice but to comply.
Luckily, the news that the Church of Scientology's power has been broken is filtering in to the believers. The fear is easing and, with it, the church's power to force obedience is fading. The church doesn't know what to do about it. Without this constant fear, they no longer have the same absolute control over their Scientologists. Oh, dear!
-
Friday, October 5, 2012
Ask a Question
I’m a bit late on a new Ask a Question. I’ve found that some browsers don’t work too well with Blogger once the comments have gone past 200 and you have to go to another page. On some browsers, you just can’t get to the next page. So, here is another Ask a Question thread.
There are some really great questions and discussions in Ask a Question 1, 2, 3, 4 and the one just before this one 5. 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.
Current Scientologist's contributions are, as always, very welcome. Trust me, I don't bite.
As always, I love to hear from you.
-
There are some really great questions and discussions in Ask a Question 1, 2, 3, 4 and the one just before this one 5. 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.
Current Scientologist's contributions are, as always, very welcome. Trust me, I don't bite.
As always, I love to hear from you.
-
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Tom, Katie, Suri and the Media Reaction
When I first started this blog, my primary intention was to clear up the misinformation about Scientology, the Church of Scientology and ex-Scientologists. Sometimes I think I've done a good job. Then there are times, like recently, when I'm amazed at how much misinformation still persists.
Katie recently had her dad fire all her Scientology "handlers" and help her file for divorce from Tom Cruise in New York.
The media has gone absolutely crazy with the news and got some very important things totally wrong. Don't they do research any more?
What the media got right:
The media has rather consistently framed Katie's actions as an "escape from Scientology". Correct, it is.
The media has viewed Scientology as weird and dangerous. Again, correct.
The media appears to consider Suri turning six as the primary trigger for the divorce and Katie asking for sole custody of Suri. I also believe this is correct.
There are other, less important things, that the media got mostly right.
What the media got wrong:
No, Suri was not in any danger of being "sent to the Sea Org". That outcome is not and was not in the cards. While I have never seen or heard of a six year old in the Sea Org, that isn't the point. Celebrities do not get sent to the Sea Org and Suri, because of her parents, is a celebrity.
Many years ago, Yvonne Jentzsch, who ran Scientology's "Celebrity Centre" used to make some celebrities "honorary Sea Org members". These people never did any Sea Org things, they just continued whatever they were famous for, but that idea died with Yvonne.
Today, celebrities, and their children, are coddled and, if they are top tier like Tom or Katie, they are assigned "handlers" to spy on them and keep them isolated.
No, Suri going to the Sea Org wasn't what Katie feared.
Suri was not in danger of being "sent to the RPF". That's just stupid.
Suri was not going to be "interrogated" (Sec Checked), at least not right away.
None of the media understood the very real danger Suri was in.
Suri's actual danger:
L. Ron Hubbard said that you don't "audit" a child before they turn six. Auditing, in this case, means all the Scientology activities that use the "e-meter".
So, that meant no "counselling sessions", no "word clearing" (no Scientology courses) and no "Sec Checks". And that meant that Suri wasn't getting any of the standard Scientology indoctrination.
But that was just about to end. Suri was six. Time to get her "in session" and "on course". You just know that Tom was heavily pressuring Katie to get Suri active in Scientology.
The divorce is Katie's unequivocal answer.
Good for you Katie, you did exactly the right thing: get Suri somewhere safe where the cult can't indoctrinate her.
UPDATE
It has now been reported (July 9th) that Katie and Tom have reached a settlement in this divorce.
This was completely expected. Tom Cruise would have received strict, emergency instructions, directly from David Miscavige, to "keep Scientology out of this!" The divorce was tied directly to Scientology and every report was mentioning all the reasons why Katie needed to get Suri away from "Scientology's evil, abusive, cultic influence" (or something like that). Miscavige would have been going insane.
So, Tom needed all this to go away. Details have not been announced, but IMHO Tom pretty much had to give Katie what she was asking for to make this settlement happen so quickly.
UPDATE 2
I hate to brag but, as the details have been leaked about the settlement, it looks like my prediction was the only one that called it 100%. Katie got everything she asked for and Tom got the "shore story" that this had "absolutely nothing to do with Scientology", just as I predicted.
-
Katie recently had her dad fire all her Scientology "handlers" and help her file for divorce from Tom Cruise in New York.
The media has gone absolutely crazy with the news and got some very important things totally wrong. Don't they do research any more?
What the media got right:
The media has rather consistently framed Katie's actions as an "escape from Scientology". Correct, it is.
The media has viewed Scientology as weird and dangerous. Again, correct.
The media appears to consider Suri turning six as the primary trigger for the divorce and Katie asking for sole custody of Suri. I also believe this is correct.
There are other, less important things, that the media got mostly right.
What the media got wrong:
No, Suri was not in any danger of being "sent to the Sea Org". That outcome is not and was not in the cards. While I have never seen or heard of a six year old in the Sea Org, that isn't the point. Celebrities do not get sent to the Sea Org and Suri, because of her parents, is a celebrity.
Many years ago, Yvonne Jentzsch, who ran Scientology's "Celebrity Centre" used to make some celebrities "honorary Sea Org members". These people never did any Sea Org things, they just continued whatever they were famous for, but that idea died with Yvonne.
Today, celebrities, and their children, are coddled and, if they are top tier like Tom or Katie, they are assigned "handlers" to spy on them and keep them isolated.
No, Suri going to the Sea Org wasn't what Katie feared.
Suri was not in danger of being "sent to the RPF". That's just stupid.
Suri was not going to be "interrogated" (Sec Checked), at least not right away.
None of the media understood the very real danger Suri was in.
Suri's actual danger:
L. Ron Hubbard said that you don't "audit" a child before they turn six. Auditing, in this case, means all the Scientology activities that use the "e-meter".
So, that meant no "counselling sessions", no "word clearing" (no Scientology courses) and no "Sec Checks". And that meant that Suri wasn't getting any of the standard Scientology indoctrination.
But that was just about to end. Suri was six. Time to get her "in session" and "on course". You just know that Tom was heavily pressuring Katie to get Suri active in Scientology.
The divorce is Katie's unequivocal answer.
Good for you Katie, you did exactly the right thing: get Suri somewhere safe where the cult can't indoctrinate her.
UPDATE
It has now been reported (July 9th) that Katie and Tom have reached a settlement in this divorce.
This was completely expected. Tom Cruise would have received strict, emergency instructions, directly from David Miscavige, to "keep Scientology out of this!" The divorce was tied directly to Scientology and every report was mentioning all the reasons why Katie needed to get Suri away from "Scientology's evil, abusive, cultic influence" (or something like that). Miscavige would have been going insane.
So, Tom needed all this to go away. Details have not been announced, but IMHO Tom pretty much had to give Katie what she was asking for to make this settlement happen so quickly.
UPDATE 2
I hate to brag but, as the details have been leaked about the settlement, it looks like my prediction was the only one that called it 100%. Katie got everything she asked for and Tom got the "shore story" that this had "absolutely nothing to do with Scientology", just as I predicted.
-
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Endings
The recent announcement from "Emma" of Ex-Scientology Message Board that, after October, she is no longer going to run the message board, has gotten me thinking about those on the front lines.
First, I think this is a very good thing for Emma to do. God! What an incredible job she has done over the years maintaining some control over that herd of cats while under continuous attack from the Church of Scientology. In 2010, when the church uncovered her real name, the attacks got considerably worse with bogus legal actions. Then, as if that wasn't hard enough, recently, her mother passed away.
Emma's message board has helped thousands, probably tens of thousands, of people recover from Scientology's thought control and abuse. Her board has been read by millions. She is awesome. And, while she will be greatly missed, there comes a time when a fighter should retire -- undefeated and victorious, for sure -- but enough is enough.
At its core, the Church of Scientology is evil, degraded, abusive and destructive. Those who help people escape from, and recover from, Scientology's abuses and thought control methods and who work to expose the crimes and abuse, are directly connected to this evil. How much can a person take of such evil? How much should a person put up with before they back off and someone else takes their place?
It is amazing to me that one single person can do so much against everything the insane, wealthy Church of Scientology can throw at them. Emma is not the only such person, and they all deserve our gratitude, our thanks and our admiration. The ability of these single individuals to defeat the Church of Scientology shows how decency, goodness and truth can defeat evil.
And don't doubt we all have defeated the Church of Scientology -- especially folks like Emma who have borne the brunt of Scientology's attacks.
Today, Scientology's secrets are all well-known. Today, Hubbard is known in the real world for exactly what he was. Today, Scientology has very few adherents and virtually no new recruits. Today, every Scientology "church" is empty and struggling -- or closed.
Yes, Scientology's few remaining, hard-core believers are still fighting, lying, abusing and attacking but their teeth have been pulled. For the most part, police and the courts recognize their lies and quickly shut down their bogus, desperate attacks.
New allies are showing up to see that Scientology's lies, abuse, crimes and fraud are exposed and the guilty are brought to justice. The opposition to the Church of Scientology actually grows daily.
So, some of the fighters are taking a well-earned break. Some of the blogs and message boards are quieter now, like this one, or even dormant, like Leaving Scientology. These fighters have earned a respite from the front lines. Don't worry, there are lots and lots of fighters on the job, and more to come.
Those fighters who are withdrawing from the front lines do so as victors and those who take over the fight are grateful and thankful.
--
First, I think this is a very good thing for Emma to do. God! What an incredible job she has done over the years maintaining some control over that herd of cats while under continuous attack from the Church of Scientology. In 2010, when the church uncovered her real name, the attacks got considerably worse with bogus legal actions. Then, as if that wasn't hard enough, recently, her mother passed away.
Emma's message board has helped thousands, probably tens of thousands, of people recover from Scientology's thought control and abuse. Her board has been read by millions. She is awesome. And, while she will be greatly missed, there comes a time when a fighter should retire -- undefeated and victorious, for sure -- but enough is enough.
At its core, the Church of Scientology is evil, degraded, abusive and destructive. Those who help people escape from, and recover from, Scientology's abuses and thought control methods and who work to expose the crimes and abuse, are directly connected to this evil. How much can a person take of such evil? How much should a person put up with before they back off and someone else takes their place?
It is amazing to me that one single person can do so much against everything the insane, wealthy Church of Scientology can throw at them. Emma is not the only such person, and they all deserve our gratitude, our thanks and our admiration. The ability of these single individuals to defeat the Church of Scientology shows how decency, goodness and truth can defeat evil.
And don't doubt we all have defeated the Church of Scientology -- especially folks like Emma who have borne the brunt of Scientology's attacks.
Today, Scientology's secrets are all well-known. Today, Hubbard is known in the real world for exactly what he was. Today, Scientology has very few adherents and virtually no new recruits. Today, every Scientology "church" is empty and struggling -- or closed.
Yes, Scientology's few remaining, hard-core believers are still fighting, lying, abusing and attacking but their teeth have been pulled. For the most part, police and the courts recognize their lies and quickly shut down their bogus, desperate attacks.
New allies are showing up to see that Scientology's lies, abuse, crimes and fraud are exposed and the guilty are brought to justice. The opposition to the Church of Scientology actually grows daily.
So, some of the fighters are taking a well-earned break. Some of the blogs and message boards are quieter now, like this one, or even dormant, like Leaving Scientology. These fighters have earned a respite from the front lines. Don't worry, there are lots and lots of fighters on the job, and more to come.
Those fighters who are withdrawing from the front lines do so as victors and those who take over the fight are grateful and thankful.
--
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Scientology in the Real World
Recently, I've just been watching. Scientology watching has become one of my entertainments. There's David Miscavige and the Church of Scientology, there's all the secrets, lies, crimes, abuses and fraud getting almost daily exposure and then there is the "Independent Scientology movement".
I find the Independent Scientologists to be the most fascinating. Here we have a perfect test of Scientology's workability unfolding right before our eyes. How can Scientology exist outside of the tightly controlled environment of the cult?
Enough time has passed for us to be able to see what Scientology is going to be like in a free and open environment.
Inside the Church of Scientology, the environment is very, very tightly controlled -- exactly as L. Ron Hubbard designed it to be. Anything negative about Hubbard or Scientology is condemned as "entheta" and is off limits. As a "good Scientologist", one cannot and will not talk to people who speak entheta. One cannot read entheta articles or listen to any entheta. That is thought control and is one of the cult's mechanisms for keeping the True Believers from straying from the approved path.
But now we have the Independent Scientology movement. They have much, much less control. If you talk to the "wrong people" according to one Scientology practitioner -- who then refuses to audit you (because you are a "bad person") -- why you can just go elsewhere.
The leaders of the Independent movement do not have enough control to stop a Scientologist from talking to anyone or reading anything.
And now we can see what happens to Scientology when the cultic thought control has been removed and when the standard threats have no weight. Can Scientology survive in a free environment?
Well, what is happening?
If you've perused the various Independent Scientology blogs, you will see Scientologists desperately attempting to enforce the old thought control. Any disagreement or entheta posted on one of their blogs gets shouted down or simply blocked. Many posts and comments on ESMB and Censored by Marty attest to the censoring that goes on at that blog.
The people running the blogs try to keep the movement clean of such entheta but, as I said earlier, they simply don't have the power to enforce it.
Scientologists outside of the church can read and can talk without fear of any meaningful punishment. Any normal person will absolutely hate and rebel against the kind of totalitarian thought-control as practiced by Scientology. You can't stop people from wanting to know more, to know the truth. And so people will look.
The more the leading voices of the Independent Scientology movement try to suppress other voices and dissenting opinions, the more people will resist. And rebel. And look.
That is happening more and more.
What has happened as a result of all this? How is the Independent Scientology movement doing without the ability to control believer's thoughts, communication and actions?
As near as I can tell, back in very early 2010, Marty Rathbun and Steve Hall had this "bright idea". They called it the "Indie 500". The idea was to get 500 Independent Scientologists to "come out" and declare their independence from the Church of Scientology. The website's definition of exactly who was an "Independent Scientologist" was extremely broad: "Anyone who uses any part of Scientology Tech, even if other parts are not true for you."
Now, over two years later, the list stands at a little over 300. It is obvious to me that someone created the original few hundred entries without getting approval from the people they were listing: In reading through the list, I see a number who do not now consider themselves "Scientologists" in any way. In addition, I know of more who's names appeared on the list and asked them to be removed.
After two years, even with those false entries, the Independent Scientology movement can't find 500 people who use "any part of Scientology Tech" who want to be associated with the movement. Why? Certainly many, many more than 500 people have left the Church of Scientology.
The reason that Scientology outside of the totalitarian control of the Church of Scientology cannot and will never thrive is because Scientology cannot coexist with open communication. Scientology cannot coexist with full access to all the information. Scientology cannot exist without its cultic thought-control.
My only question is: Can any part of Scientology exist in an open and free environment? I certainly don't know, only time will tell.
What do you think? If you are out of the church, what is your experience with the Independent Movement?
-
I find the Independent Scientologists to be the most fascinating. Here we have a perfect test of Scientology's workability unfolding right before our eyes. How can Scientology exist outside of the tightly controlled environment of the cult?
Enough time has passed for us to be able to see what Scientology is going to be like in a free and open environment.
Inside the Church of Scientology, the environment is very, very tightly controlled -- exactly as L. Ron Hubbard designed it to be. Anything negative about Hubbard or Scientology is condemned as "entheta" and is off limits. As a "good Scientologist", one cannot and will not talk to people who speak entheta. One cannot read entheta articles or listen to any entheta. That is thought control and is one of the cult's mechanisms for keeping the True Believers from straying from the approved path.
But now we have the Independent Scientology movement. They have much, much less control. If you talk to the "wrong people" according to one Scientology practitioner -- who then refuses to audit you (because you are a "bad person") -- why you can just go elsewhere.
The leaders of the Independent movement do not have enough control to stop a Scientologist from talking to anyone or reading anything.
And now we can see what happens to Scientology when the cultic thought control has been removed and when the standard threats have no weight. Can Scientology survive in a free environment?
Well, what is happening?
If you've perused the various Independent Scientology blogs, you will see Scientologists desperately attempting to enforce the old thought control. Any disagreement or entheta posted on one of their blogs gets shouted down or simply blocked. Many posts and comments on ESMB and Censored by Marty attest to the censoring that goes on at that blog.
The people running the blogs try to keep the movement clean of such entheta but, as I said earlier, they simply don't have the power to enforce it.
Scientologists outside of the church can read and can talk without fear of any meaningful punishment. Any normal person will absolutely hate and rebel against the kind of totalitarian thought-control as practiced by Scientology. You can't stop people from wanting to know more, to know the truth. And so people will look.
The more the leading voices of the Independent Scientology movement try to suppress other voices and dissenting opinions, the more people will resist. And rebel. And look.
That is happening more and more.
What has happened as a result of all this? How is the Independent Scientology movement doing without the ability to control believer's thoughts, communication and actions?
As near as I can tell, back in very early 2010, Marty Rathbun and Steve Hall had this "bright idea". They called it the "Indie 500". The idea was to get 500 Independent Scientologists to "come out" and declare their independence from the Church of Scientology. The website's definition of exactly who was an "Independent Scientologist" was extremely broad: "Anyone who uses any part of Scientology Tech, even if other parts are not true for you."
Now, over two years later, the list stands at a little over 300. It is obvious to me that someone created the original few hundred entries without getting approval from the people they were listing: In reading through the list, I see a number who do not now consider themselves "Scientologists" in any way. In addition, I know of more who's names appeared on the list and asked them to be removed.
After two years, even with those false entries, the Independent Scientology movement can't find 500 people who use "any part of Scientology Tech" who want to be associated with the movement. Why? Certainly many, many more than 500 people have left the Church of Scientology.
The reason that Scientology outside of the totalitarian control of the Church of Scientology cannot and will never thrive is because Scientology cannot coexist with open communication. Scientology cannot coexist with full access to all the information. Scientology cannot exist without its cultic thought-control.
My only question is: Can any part of Scientology exist in an open and free environment? I certainly don't know, only time will tell.
What do you think? If you are out of the church, what is your experience with the Independent Movement?
-
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Laughing at Scientology
We really have entered into a new stage in the fight against the Church of Scientology's crimes, abuse and fraud.
For the most part, previous exposure of the church's evil has been brought about by outsiders -- ex-Scientologists, reporters, critics and various victims. Marty and the Independents have been exposing carefully selected abuses (making sure that nothing is exposed that might reflect badly on L. Ron Hubbard himself) but they are, by their own statements, outsiders to the church.
With Debbie Cook's email and subsequent reactions, we have exposure of abuses coming from inside the church. The battle is now also between the Church of Scientology leadership and people who still consider themselves members of the church.
In addition, there are, today, a number of other very serious actions going on. There are serious books about Scientology, serious newspaper, TV and magazine exposés about Scientology and other serious court cases involving the church.
All this is good and necessary to the exposure of the Church of Scientology's crimes and eventual bringing to justice of David Miscavige and other Scientology criminals. Pop the popcorn and pull up a chair, this show is getting very interesting.
But I don't think we should take any particular event too seriously. No one court case is that important. Inevitably, the church will still win some while it loses others. It will be the mass of exposure and court losses for the church that count. Bit by bit the crimes and abuses are being exposed and documented. Things proven in court cannot be "unproven".
It was, more than anything else, Anonymous and their monthly protest-parties that destroyed the Church of Scientology's mythical shield that protected them for so long. It was Anonymous that showed us that the church had no answer to laughter, happiness and fun.
Certainly, the seriousness is important in the court and in well-researched book, newspaper or TV exposés -- but if we become too serious, we will have abandoned our best weapon against the Church of Scientology and David Miscavige.
Happily, the irrepressible Tony Ortega at the Village Voice and a few others continue the tradition of laughing at Miscavige, Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. And, yes, some Anonymous are still protesting. With all this seriousness going on, we shouldn't forget to also keep laughing -- it's good for the soul and bad for the church.
--
For the most part, previous exposure of the church's evil has been brought about by outsiders -- ex-Scientologists, reporters, critics and various victims. Marty and the Independents have been exposing carefully selected abuses (making sure that nothing is exposed that might reflect badly on L. Ron Hubbard himself) but they are, by their own statements, outsiders to the church.
With Debbie Cook's email and subsequent reactions, we have exposure of abuses coming from inside the church. The battle is now also between the Church of Scientology leadership and people who still consider themselves members of the church.
In addition, there are, today, a number of other very serious actions going on. There are serious books about Scientology, serious newspaper, TV and magazine exposés about Scientology and other serious court cases involving the church.
All this is good and necessary to the exposure of the Church of Scientology's crimes and eventual bringing to justice of David Miscavige and other Scientology criminals. Pop the popcorn and pull up a chair, this show is getting very interesting.
But I don't think we should take any particular event too seriously. No one court case is that important. Inevitably, the church will still win some while it loses others. It will be the mass of exposure and court losses for the church that count. Bit by bit the crimes and abuses are being exposed and documented. Things proven in court cannot be "unproven".
However, speaking of all this serious business reminds me: Let us not forget what was key in helping destroy the myth of the "great and powerful" Church of Scientology -- laughter!
It was, more than anything else, Anonymous and their monthly protest-parties that destroyed the Church of Scientology's mythical shield that protected them for so long. It was Anonymous that showed us that the church had no answer to laughter, happiness and fun.
Certainly, the seriousness is important in the court and in well-researched book, newspaper or TV exposés -- but if we become too serious, we will have abandoned our best weapon against the Church of Scientology and David Miscavige.
Happily, the irrepressible Tony Ortega at the Village Voice and a few others continue the tradition of laughing at Miscavige, Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. And, yes, some Anonymous are still protesting. With all this seriousness going on, we shouldn't forget to also keep laughing -- it's good for the soul and bad for the church.
--
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Scientology's Peril Sensitive Sunglasses
I must admit that I am a fan of Douglas Adams. I find his very quirky British humor refreshing and delightful. The above is a sample of his type of humor: Sunglasses that "help" you when danger looms by becoming completely opaque.He... put on the sunglasses, annoyed to discover that the metal object had scratched one of the lenses. Nevertheless, he felt much more comfortable with them on. They were a double pair of Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, which had been specially designed to help people develop a relaxed attitude toward danger. At the first hint of trouble they turn totally black and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might alarm you.
Ridiculous! Absurd! Hilarious!
Such an object makes no sense and would never exist.
Unless you are a Scientologist.
Danger is certainly looming for all Scientologists. Every year, every month, heck, every day it seems like, there is more bad news for the Church of Scientology. Secret documents are leaked; crimes are exposed in detail with lots of confirmation; lies are debunked; abuses documented. It just doesn't stop.
It used to be somewhat obscure websites only visited by the few. Today it is major media -- newspapers, magazines, television, radio and books by major publishers. Scientologists are leaving the church and telling their stories.
It just doesn't stop. Danger looms from every side.
And this is where Scientology's Peril Sensitive Sunglasses kick in. You can't see them but every Scientologist has a trusty pair firmly clamped on their faces. These sunglasses have been installed over many months and years of Scientology indoctrination.
When danger looms and Scientology is in peril, Scientologists' minds go opaque. They cannot and do not read. They cannot and do not look. They cannot and do not think.
Then they are safe. Totally safe. They look, childlike, at David Miscavige, who tells them "Everything is OK! Scientology is expanding! Scientology is winning!"
And the Scientologists, with their Scientology Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, set to totally black, can relax.
All is OK.
-
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Happy New Year 2012
It has been a considerable time since I posted any significant article. It isn't that nothing was going on, obviously, but it was, instead, a combination of too much going on for me personally (good things) and things going incredibly well in exposing the crimes, lies, abuse and fraud of the Church of Scientology.
All I could say was "Well done!"
But, here it is, a new year and I had in mind doing a pretty ordinary look back and then make predictions. It's fun to do.
But there is a new and significant event that just happened which changed my plans for what would probably have been a predictable and boring article.
I am, of course, referring to the Debbie Cook email.
This is significant. While it is true that Scientologists "in good standing" have been talking with each other about some of the problems and it is true that prominent Scientologists have spoken out after leaving the church, there has never been a prominent Scientologist speaking out while still, technically, "in good standing".
This email went to a lot of well connected Scientologists who have no reason to doubt that Debbie Cook is still in good standing.
Let's take a look at what Debbie says. She is not attacking Scientology or Hubbard in any way. She uses the line "The truth is that as a Scientologist you are more able, more perceptive and have a higher integrity" to appeal to the Scientology ego. While she names David Miscavige, she doesn't personally attack him (i.e. call him "suppressive"). She quotes Hubbard appropriately to make her points. While lengthy, her email does not get bogged down in too much detail as so many other "doubt formulas" have. She has done a good job talking to Scientologists in their terms.
I believe this will be effective. I'm guessing that speaking freely about everything Debbie has brought up will become common within Scientology. That is all to the good.
I read a concerned comment by someone to the effect that we don't want Scientologists to rebel and reform Scientology as Debbie urges. We want, the commenter insists, the church to continue to abuse and defraud Scientologists in order to speed up its collapse.
I'd say that this email will greatly speed up the church's collapse. First, Debbie urges all Scientologists to stop sending any money to the church except for donations for services -- which monies remain (mostly) local. This cuts off Miscavige's lucrative income from all his bogus fundraising tricks.
But wait! By pointing out all the "out-tech" now being enforced by the church, she is discouraging Scientologists from actually taking services.
And, finally, by detailing the total destruction of the upper management of the church, Debbie is making it perfectly "legal" to ignore the dictates coming from "management".
They may remain True Believers, and they may then be captured by the Independent Movement, but that group is not organized and is not effective.
And remember this: True Believers must use Scientology and only Scientology for all their endeavors. They must use the Admin and Ethics "tech". The built-in flaws in all of that ensure that any future Scientology organization will not succeed.
This certainly is a good way to start a New Year.
-
All I could say was "Well done!"
But, here it is, a new year and I had in mind doing a pretty ordinary look back and then make predictions. It's fun to do.
But there is a new and significant event that just happened which changed my plans for what would probably have been a predictable and boring article.
I am, of course, referring to the Debbie Cook email.
This is significant. While it is true that Scientologists "in good standing" have been talking with each other about some of the problems and it is true that prominent Scientologists have spoken out after leaving the church, there has never been a prominent Scientologist speaking out while still, technically, "in good standing".
This email went to a lot of well connected Scientologists who have no reason to doubt that Debbie Cook is still in good standing.
Let's take a look at what Debbie says. She is not attacking Scientology or Hubbard in any way. She uses the line "The truth is that as a Scientologist you are more able, more perceptive and have a higher integrity" to appeal to the Scientology ego. While she names David Miscavige, she doesn't personally attack him (i.e. call him "suppressive"). She quotes Hubbard appropriately to make her points. While lengthy, her email does not get bogged down in too much detail as so many other "doubt formulas" have. She has done a good job talking to Scientologists in their terms.
I believe this will be effective. I'm guessing that speaking freely about everything Debbie has brought up will become common within Scientology. That is all to the good.
I read a concerned comment by someone to the effect that we don't want Scientologists to rebel and reform Scientology as Debbie urges. We want, the commenter insists, the church to continue to abuse and defraud Scientologists in order to speed up its collapse.
I'd say that this email will greatly speed up the church's collapse. First, Debbie urges all Scientologists to stop sending any money to the church except for donations for services -- which monies remain (mostly) local. This cuts off Miscavige's lucrative income from all his bogus fundraising tricks.
But wait! By pointing out all the "out-tech" now being enforced by the church, she is discouraging Scientologists from actually taking services.
And, finally, by detailing the total destruction of the upper management of the church, Debbie is making it perfectly "legal" to ignore the dictates coming from "management".
UPDATE: I see some speculation as to why Debbie emphasized that she hasn't spoken to the media and then says "Please keep this email among us, the Scientologists. The media have no place in this" when she must know it would be quickly spread everywhere.
I assume this has to do with her gag agreement with the Church of Scientology when she left the Sea Org. She is, undoubtedly, forbidden from talking to the media. By saying what she says, she is abiding by the agreement. If others ignore her request and spread it about, it's not her fault.If this doesn't cause a majority of the remaining churchies to disassociate from the Church of Scientology, I'll be very surprised.
They may remain True Believers, and they may then be captured by the Independent Movement, but that group is not organized and is not effective.
And remember this: True Believers must use Scientology and only Scientology for all their endeavors. They must use the Admin and Ethics "tech". The built-in flaws in all of that ensure that any future Scientology organization will not succeed.
This certainly is a good way to start a New Year.
-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
