tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post8270929861713265251..comments2023-09-18T04:45:52.991-07:00Comments on Ask the Scientologist: How LRH Destroys Scientologists' Ability to ThinkJust Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-7289645208773856952011-08-11T06:09:43.133-07:002011-08-11T06:09:43.133-07:00Yes he did make that claim.
http://www.sdmin.org...Yes he did make that claim. <br /><br />http://www.sdmin.org/soundingboard/199709.htmDavenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-3631639687878202252011-08-10T06:41:44.366-07:002011-08-10T06:41:44.366-07:00Re: Buddhism
Exactly right. Hubbard "borrow...Re: Buddhism<br /><br />Exactly right. Hubbard "borrowed" from everyone -- and then claimed ownership.<br /><br />But, didn't Hubbard claim to be Buddah?Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-342836231416222422011-08-10T06:19:54.252-07:002011-08-10T06:19:54.252-07:00Anyone who rejects some of Hubbard's technolog...<i>Anyone who rejects some of Hubbard's technology would be called a “squirrel” by true believers.</i><br /><br />This is irony writ large as Hubbard was the <i>ultimate</i> squirrel in that he completely plagiarized, warped and distorted Buddhism. In fact, a good case could be made that Scientology is a squirrel Buddhist sect. Buddhists have the absolute right to call Scientologists squirrels.<br /><br />If you are interested in true Buddhism, IMO the following link will take you there:<br /><br /><b>http://www.dhamma.org/</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-3145207396794290632011-03-17T09:50:59.643-07:002011-03-17T09:50:59.643-07:00@python
Re: Money
The Church of Scientology has ...@python<br /><br />Re: Money<br /><br />The Church of Scientology has <i>lots</i> of money in its hidden, offshore bank accounts. Lots. It all "belongs" to David Miscavige. No one can touch it except little Davy.<br /><br />He will keep the con going until every last penny has been vacuumed out of the pocket of the last Scientologist. Which might go on for some time.<br /><br />At some point the business known as the Church of Scientology will collapse because it can no longer pay its bills, but as long as Miscavige wants to, he will keep the con going -- even after the church disappears.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-15367043616174614632011-03-17T07:09:30.084-07:002011-03-17T07:09:30.084-07:00one question: Does anyone know how much $$$ scilon...one question: Does anyone know how much $$$ scilons have left? Because that's the only way to determine how much longer they can last.<br /><br />pythonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-90513983038293455422011-03-16T17:34:24.903-07:002011-03-16T17:34:24.903-07:00eeew I wish I didn't ask. Thanks for digging t...eeew I wish I didn't ask. Thanks for digging the link for me but good god..<br /><br />PythonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-34716197934959799112011-03-15T16:34:49.638-07:002011-03-15T16:34:49.638-07:00First of all, let me say that again I've been ...First of all, let me say that again I've been reminded by posts here that I'm almost 20 years "out" of Scientology services and about 7 years "out" of denial about my experiences and only about 1 year "out" of giving Scientology some credence. So I should realize that it is a process and does take time. OTOH, enough is enough. Had the internet and this forum (plus those like it)been around in 2000, I'd have wised up earlier, I believe. Still, it takes confront to separate oneself from delusions--the reason more people don't do it is that it is very, very painful. I am fortunate to have the leisure time and support necessary to offset the pain. If I were working 40 hrs. a week and not married to a wonderful spouse, I don't know where I'd be in the separation from CoS process.<br /><br />I see Study Tech exactly as Just Bill does. He has followed the logic of it to the endpoint and is correct. If you don't see it, you need to think more carefully and follow the logic of LRH's statements. Even sociopaths have a logic in their constructions.<br /><br />Which brings me to THAT question. <br /><br />Even sociopaths have things and people they "love."<br /><br />Hitler loved animals and was very happy to see them thriving. LRH for most of his life had enormous charm and plausibility because sociopaths need protective coloring of some kind. If LRH had been handsome and an Adonis, he would probably have been able to go easier on the charm. It all fades as they age, hence the paranoia and crankiness of his later years.<br /><br />If you have ANY doubts about CoS, just look at the way they go after any critic, or anyone who just tells the truth--their truth, that LRH supposedly said they were entitled to. He only said that once, to con the gullible, and the rest of his output is completely the opposite.<br />CoS is as dangerous as Nazism or the Inquisition. You can't prove that statement false.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-67072768213945851922011-03-15T07:31:50.239-07:002011-03-15T07:31:50.239-07:00@python
Hubbard's Affirmations[pdf]. Also ca...@python<br /><br /><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lermanet.com%2Freference%2FAdmissions.pdf&rct=j&q=hubbard%20affirmations&ei=YHd_TbHMEoumsQOeobCGBg&usg=AFQjCNE7uWHAxzknfT3mK_xjDoFAFJrwBA&sig2=cuXy4vGAwu4ezvCkVaDoew&cad=rja" rel="nofollow">Hubbard's Affirmations</a>[pdf]. Also called Hubbard's admissions by Omar Garrison.<br /><br />Very creepy.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-42404232232277863612011-03-14T23:01:52.390-07:002011-03-14T23:01:52.390-07:00Where are those Hubbard's affirmations you guy...Where are those Hubbard's affirmations you guys are talking about? Links?<br /><br />thanks<br /><br />pythonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-62715302435583083032011-03-14T15:09:50.862-07:002011-03-14T15:09:50.862-07:00Thanks, Bill. Succinct as always.
I've read...Thanks, Bill. Succinct as always.<br /><br /> I've read his affirmations - how pathetic. <br /><br />The literal meaning of 'psychopath' is 'sick soul'. I think that fits. He was. A bloated ego that had to be fed and coddled constantly. <br /><br />I understand why people fall for cults; I could have myself, I know exactly when in my life. But that smug, sly, toadlike face - egads. What a warning signal.<br /><br />Publish! Publish!<br /><br />Best,<br />SheepherderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-44532614757786371062011-03-14T14:34:14.357-07:002011-03-14T14:34:14.357-07:00@Sheepherder
No argument here. There is much abo...@Sheepherder<br /><br />No argument here. There is much about Hubbard that is just plain creepy.<br /><br />I think his deepest motivation was paranoia. Also, if you have read his Affirmations, you know how insecure he was. Combine his insecurity with his paranoia, and I can see exactly why he created the organization that he did.<br /><br />He was completely protected from <i>everything</i>. His opinions could <i>not</i> be questioned. Doubters and critics could be shut up and even destroyed. He could order crimes to be committed (to protect himself and his ego) and they would be carried out and all evidence leading back to him destroyed.<br /><br />When you say the environment was "unworkable", that isn't true from Hubbard's point of view. It was a nearly perfect environment for an insecure paranoiac. Of course, it didn't help his condition, which got progressively worse over the years.<br /><br />I'm sure that someone who worked with him might be able to give more insight and might correct my analysis. I'm only guessing from second-hand information.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-46953002877034117972011-03-14T14:10:31.329-07:002011-03-14T14:10:31.329-07:00Bill,
Yes, it's pretty plain that DM is simpl...Bill,<br /><br />Yes, it's pretty plain that DM is simple and LRH was complex; sort of like Stalin, who was a simple batspit-crazy paranoid potentate in a long line from King Herod to Saddam Hussein, compared to Lenin (who was brilliant and sane tho inhuman.)<br /><br />But regarding LRH's motives; if it wasn't for power, then why did he cook up a system which he must have known was unworkable, even nonsensical, and potentially abusive? (well, it works perfectly as a cult.) Maybe not for raw power, but the more subtle , sadistic amusement of jerking people's chains. He wasn't no nice guy, ever. Look at his treatment of Parsons, his wives and children.<br /><br />Frankly he creeps me out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-7764618202431667282011-03-14T13:45:23.003-07:002011-03-14T13:45:23.003-07:00@Sheepherder
Re: Hubbard sociopath
You could be ...@Sheepherder<br /><br />Re: Hubbard sociopath<br /><br />You could be right. You certainly make a good case, but I'm still not so sure.<br /><br />Miscavige is, in my opinion, a very simple person. He hates everybody, he wants to punish everybody, he wants more and more power, he wants more and more control, he wants more and more money and tries to destroy anyone who might challenge him. He has no other goals and no other motivation. He is crazy, with a thin social veneer.<br /><br />Miscavige doesn't think Scientology works, he never applies it himself. To him, it's just the way he gets money and power, and how he can abuse and destroy people without getting caught.<br /><br />But, in my observation, Hubbard was <i>much</i> more complex, more confused and more conflicted.<br /><br />He was truly happy when people got better and felt happier. He really was. He wasn't so much a power-hungry despot. Yes, he wanted to be "Source" and "Founder" and "Commodore", but that was more an ego thing rather than power. He constantly tried to put other people in charge of various parts of the church. Sure, he always wanted to keep his finger in things and "correct" this and that. But that was more about "being Source" than super-control. He liked to do it from a distance -- where he didn't have to deal with the mundane details.<br /><br />Yes, he was super-paranoid. Yes, he could be terribly vicious and evil. Yes, his "church" was a scam, a con and a fraud. I'm pretty sure Hubbard knew that at the start.<br /><br />But I think that, in the end, Hubbard <i>believed</i> that Scientology "worked". He kept auditing himself until the very end, <i>believing</i> it worked and that he was "going to go OT".<br /><br />With Hubbard, it's hard to classify what was his problem, but it doesn't seem like "sociopath" is the correct label. Sure he was crazy, but beyond that, I have no easy label to put to him.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-75533065268507971532011-03-14T13:34:55.834-07:002011-03-14T13:34:55.834-07:00Well, JB, all I can say re the new Scientologists ...Well, JB, all I can say re the new Scientologists is that my hope is that it will happen, and that the single-authority church will go away. The way it is going, the church will go away, and Indie groups will continue (including the Free Zone, which is Indie in my book). Even if a group of Indies try to reestablish the church, or create a new version of the old edifice, we will never go back to a central iron hand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-14802494047997864032011-03-14T13:20:06.673-07:002011-03-14T13:20:06.673-07:00Dear Bill,
"... Hubbard intentionally created...Dear Bill,<br />"... Hubbard intentionally created this nightmare.." You explained beautifully how he did it; I'd be fascinated to know your opinion on WHY he did .<br /><br />You've said before that DM is a sociopath, but you didn't seem to think the LRH was. <br /><br /> A sociopath, be definition, is a person without conscience; they know the difference between right and wrong but it means nothing to them; they are manipulative and often very charming and charismatic; they can take on whatever coloring the occasion requires, but there is nothing inside but a vast appetite. <br /><br />All I know is what I've read about him, but that sure sounds like Hubbard's personality to me. Am I wrong? <br /> I hope you'll continue with your analyses. And then publish a book. I really think you should.<br /><br />SheepherderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-29420778747587359592011-03-14T12:28:26.879-07:002011-03-14T12:28:26.879-07:00Grasshopper-
Very minor clarification. I was not w...Grasshopper-<br />Very minor clarification. I was not word cleared into submission, that attempt to failed. Instead I routed off the course and ceased participating altogether. Being forced into submission does not sit well with me, never has. <br /><br />Agreed it is a cancer that needs to be gotten rid of, but I think the cancer runs deeper than current management.<br /><br />Good to hear you mostly agree with Bill.<br /><br />ThanksAnnenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-36079386816092765622011-03-14T10:48:46.595-07:002011-03-14T10:48:46.595-07:00@Grasshopper
We agree that blindly following Hubb...@Grasshopper<br /><br />We agree that blindly following Hubbard without question is bad. That pretty much is the whole point of my article and my concern about Scientology going forward.<br /><br />If "new Scientologists" can <i>only</i> take what actually produces beneficial effects and reject the rest, and promise <i>only</i> what they can <i>actually</i> deliver, then Scientology may survive.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-63485853124639444972011-03-14T10:45:04.836-07:002011-03-14T10:45:04.836-07:00@Grasshopper
You successfully "challenged an...@Grasshopper<br /><br />You successfully "challenged an answer to the Class VI exam". And your used, as the basis for your challenge, one or more LRH references, didn't you? How does that come down to challenging Hubbard? You didn't. No one can. Hubbard is <i>always correct</i> in Scientology. I have heard of people challenging Hubbard. They were declared suppressive, of course.<br /><br />Apparently, we have associated with completely different "Scientologists". In my experiences with Scientologists inside the church, what I've seen with Independents and what I've read about Ron's Org, is that Scientologists revere Hubbard as almost God-like (a "true OT") who was <i>never, ever</i> wrong. "What does Ron say" is the ultimate answer to everything. <br /><br />They quote Ron as the <i>Ultimate Source</i> for Truth. The Scientologists I knew and see today would <i>never, ever</i> disagree with Ron, not ever. Not in the slightest way.<br /><br />But you, apparently, associate with Scientologists who regularly and happily disagree with Ron. Apparently even decades ago you saw this.<br /><br />Well, you saw what you saw. The only evidence I have is KSW, the entire history of the Church of Scientology and <i>everything</i> written on the Indy blogs.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-30537360319096565262011-03-14T09:22:26.711-07:002011-03-14T09:22:26.711-07:00Anne, I think that once Bill and I came to agreeme...Anne, I think that once Bill and I came to agreement on the scope of the argument, we mostly agree with one another. I did my training in another day. Regarding #3, that was not my experience. Of course, it is the experience of many now. To me, the current regime is a cancer that must be gotten rid of. It has redefined the experience of Scientology for a lot of people. However, to many, this is all they know, as in, apparently, your case when you were word cleared into submission. That is not how it should be, and not how it was.Grasshopperhttp://ahgrasshopper.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-47839500936960075292011-03-14T09:12:10.577-07:002011-03-14T09:12:10.577-07:00Hi JB. Thanks.
There was a way to challenge anyt...Hi JB. Thanks. <br /><br />There was a way to challenge anything, which was, in its essence, writing it up and sending it up to Ron or the Issue Authority, or challenging it in Qual in your organization. The line is probably still in, but of course, the current regime has changed things around. But, I personally challenged an answer to the Class VI exam, and it was corrected. Scientology was not always as rigid as it is now.<br /><br />I don't know where you got the idea that Study Tech when studying Scientology means that you must accept as gospel all that Hubbard wrote. I never read that, anywhere, nor was it practiced. But then, all my training is pre-GAT, and who knows what they did to it?<br /><br />Let us cut to the chase, and say that I agree with you when you limit the scope of the argument to people who mindlessly accept what Hubbard wrote without inspection, and if you limit your definition of "Scientologist" to the RTC-approved, TM version of the term.Grasshopperhttp://ahgrasshopper.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-59206925523846166272011-03-13T23:59:51.604-07:002011-03-13T23:59:51.604-07:00Grasshopper's initial comment also exhibits pr...Grasshopper's initial comment also exhibits problems that Grade IV is said to handle. "But the four points listed here are bogus.” The points are NOT bogus. They are important points and helpful for those newly out and trying to piece together the techniques the church used to overpower the person's innate logic and ability to think. <br /><br />Re #1 My org academy experience was you are made to restudy until you find misunderstood words and come to agreement with the course material. <br /><br />Re Grasshopper snide comment #3 "I must have missed that memo." <br /><br />If you missed that memo, find out for yourself or have someone receiving auditing in the church try letting their auditor know they read Bare Faced Messiah, or Abuse at the Top, Counterfeit Dreams, about the Lisa McPherson lawsuit. Are they allowed to continue with auditing? Probably not, instead likely they'll be assigned Liability at best and have to "make up damages" by volunteering, paying money, or both. Then spend auditing $$ on this overt.<br /><br />Re proof of results, instead of causing trouble and asking for proof I paid close attention to auditing results in self and others. I was alarmed at the results in OT 5, 7 and 8's - they were increasingly arrogant, cold, insincere, compassionless. They did not express original thoughts and ideas, they seemed to speak from scripts not their true self. Just saying these are just the results I saw.Annenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-50963554069356120462011-03-13T20:51:37.210-07:002011-03-13T20:51:37.210-07:00Great post... as always.
I remember once during my...Great post... as always.<br />I remember once during my short stay in the Sea Org,(I woke up once and said, "What am I doing here? This isn't what I signed up for.") I heard a part of an LRH tape where he said that "All reporters are agents of the government." Well, I had spent time as a producer for a news/talk station and had known my share of reporters... none were "agents." <br />I called the supervisor over and discussed my problem.<br />After checking over for words I didn't understand (I passed that easily), he just threw the book down and walked away.<br />I think that was the beginning of the end of my stay. People just didn't look at me the same way again.<br />You are right... no matter what, you must agree or else. After a long while I think I like "or else" better.lesj39noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-76828457695108128392011-03-13T17:17:25.037-07:002011-03-13T17:17:25.037-07:00Looking at Grasshopper's initial comment, with...Looking at Grasshopper's initial comment, with its gross misinterpretations, misunderstandings and misquotes, if <i>that's</i> someone exhibiting the abilities from Grade 0, <i>Communications</i> Release, I'll eat my hat.<br /><br />He exhibited <i>serious</i> problems with communication, and then he claims "got all the promised abilities" from his auditing.<br /><br />Say what? Did he skip Grade 0?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-22696540649053821392011-03-13T16:31:47.954-07:002011-03-13T16:31:47.954-07:00“The real danger of Study Tech is that it was desi...“The real danger of Study Tech is that it was designed for indoctrination, not education. While it may be good at producing obedient Scientologists, it is completely at odds with promoting the ability to think independently. It quite deliberately aims to reduce a student's ability to think critically. Students are taught to distrust their own intelligence and background knowledge, passively and uncritically accepting whatever they are being told. This can only deprive students of a skill vital in an age saturated with conflicting messages, where critical thinking is essential to making sense of the world.”<br /> <br />--Dr. David S. Touretsky<br /> Carnegie Mellon UniversityAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-85827812296925880592011-03-13T16:01:52.779-07:002011-03-13T16:01:52.779-07:00Where's the objective evidence of these purpor...Where's the objective evidence of these purported abilities of yours, Grasshopper? If I proclaim that as a result of completing a miraculous new math class I've now mastered calculus, I ought to be able to solve ten calculus problems created and administered by someone outside the class.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com