What Annoys Me Most About Scientologists

I do not and will never hate Scientologists.  I was one.  I think that most Scientologists are good people who have been trapped by their own desire to do good work and help others.

I will not attack Scientologists for practicing Scientology.  That is their right.  What a person believes is their business and no one else's.  Scientology, the belief system, should not be banned.  Ideas cannot be erased and to try to do so only gives them more importance.

I just want to point out where Scientologists' behavior varies significantly from what they say they advocate, especially Scientologists who have left the Church of Scientology.

First up, responsibility.  Or, to be more precise, Scientologists' universal refusal to take responsibility for what they have done.

Scientologists simply don't take responsibility for their actions, or non-actions, in relation to Scientology.  Ex-churchies inevitably blame David Miscavige for everything.  It is his, and only his, fault that things are bad in the church.

Did they applaud when Miscavige changed everything?  Yes they did.  Did they hop right up and take the now-"corrupted" courses and buy the now-"corrupted" books?  Yes they did.  Did they pay lip-service to the "Keeping Scientology Working" policy while applauding every little thing that Miscavige did to subvert and violate that policy?  Yes they did.  Did they do anything to stop David Miscavige from taking over and destroying their church?  Why, no, they didn't.

I know that some Scientologists did refuse to go along with Miscavige's crimes, lies and abuse but they were kicked out.  And a vast majority of Scientologists whole-heartedly condemned the very people who were taking responsibility.

And now Scientologists blame Miscavige and only Miscavige for everything that they allowed to happen and even applauded.

No responsibility.  None.

But wait, there's more!  We have, in the Independent Scientology community, certain executives who worked directly with and for David Miscavige.  While they were "in favor" they supported, forwarded and emulated Miscavige's corruption, crimes, lies and abuse.  They were part of the machinery that corrupted the Scientology technology.  They were part of the gang that beat up and mentally abused staff.  They were part of the evil.

And, now, they are the biggest supporters of the "It's all Miscavige, it's only Miscavige, I'm not responsible at all!" propaganda.

In other words, those most responsible for supporting Miscavige, those most responsible for forwarding his corruption and his lies, those most responsible for the evil that they now condemn, are saying that, no, they "were not responsible at all!"  Perhaps that's no surprise, but it is very disappointing.  I'd much rather hear, in detail, how they are taking full responsibility for their crimes, their abuse and their lies.

Yes, I know that some of these top executives have "admitted" to some bad acts but they still blame Miscavige for "making them do it".  It's still no responsibility.  They were in positions of power in Scientology and they used their power to help Miscavige do his evil deeds and they used their power to destroy those who tried to stop Miscavige -- for years.  They have much to answer for but, no, it's "not their fault".

It really annoys me that Scientologists emphatically will not take responsibility for what they have done or should have done.  Truly, the dirtiest word in Scientology is "responsibility".

Next up is confront.  Scientologists cannot confront.

And this is also very annoying to me.  Scientologists will brag about their confront.  They have done the TRs Course and, boy, can they now confront!

But they can't and they won't.

If you try to discuss simple facts with a Scientologist, they plug their ears and go "La-la-la-la-la-la", they delete your comments, they compile lists of websites they can't look at, books they can't read, newspapers they must not see, people they must never talk to and they generally run away.

They do not confront.

If you mention the simple fact that Scientology has never produced a single OT, they cannot hear you.  They actually are aware that there are no OTs but they cannot confront that fact.  The same goes for the non-existent abilities of Clear and the promised-but-missing abilities from the Grades.

The same goes for all their world-saving "solutions".  Their "solutions" have all failed in the real world, but those facts cannot, will not, be confronted.

These are simple facts.  Every Scientologist knows these facts are true but they cannot confront them.  Whenever I've mentioned some of these facts to a Scientologist, there is a deafening silence.  No debate, no argument, just run-run away and never confront it.

And finally, justifications.  In Scientology dogma, justifications are Bad.  According to L. Ron Hubbard, when you have done something wrong, you will inevitably try to justify it in some way.  Scientologists are supposed to recognize that, when you hear justifications, look for the harmful actions or neglect that preceeded it.

But all I hear from Scientologists are justifications.  Scientologists are well-equipt with many "reasons why" things didn't work out as promised.  They can give you all the justificatons why those processes didn't work, why these "solutions" never solved things, why those exhalted Scientologists were found to have committed massive fraud and why they ended up with their church destroyed.

And none of their justifications match reality or lead to any resolution.  Here is where Scientologists' refusal to take responsibility and their lack of confront come together to create the justifications why it isn't their fault, it isn't Scientology's fault and it isn't Hubbard's fault.  It is always someone else's fault, someone else's error or someone else's "evil intentions".

Scientologists' solution to Scientology's failings and broken promises is to justify, prevaricate and make up "reasons why" -- but never to simply confront the facts, take responsibility and live with the truth.  It's hard work being a Scientologist.

I have no problem with Scientologists practicing Scientology and getting whatever gains they get from it.  But they pretend to a reality that doesn't exist  because they cannot confront the reality that is.  Yes, they can feel better.  No, they cannot "go OT".

Scientologists' universal lack of responsibility and inability to confront annoys me a lot.  You see, these are things that Scientologists are proud of: their superior responsibility and their powerful confront -- and yet they have none.  They don't even try.

This is Scientology.  Scientology isn't what they say, it's what Scientologists do.  And the above is what Scientologists do.

If I were still a Scientologist, I'd be so ashamed.
-

"Real, live OTs!"

Well, this is certainly good news.  An Independent Scientologist has announced that he is producing "real, live OTs".

Isn't that wonderful?

In addition, can we also assume he is producing "real, live Releases" and "real, live Clears"?

Think about it, even L. Ron Hubbard, in all his years, never produced real, live Releases, Clears or OTs.  Hubbard himself was not Clear and was not OT.  We now know that when Hubbard died, he was quite sick, in pain, hiding from the law and ultimately betrayed by those he trusted.  Hubbard could not produce the miraculous results he promised, even on himself.

No, there is no verified evidence that anyone ever fully gained the promised, miraculous Abilities Gained from Scientology's Grade Chart -- not via Hubbard's personal auditing, not via Church of Scientology auditing and not via any outside Scientology practitioner's auditing.  It never happened.

But now we find, after decades of Scientology failing to produce any of the promised, miraculous results, this Independent Scientologist has finally succeeded!

"Holy cats!  Real, live OTs!"
...

Of course, if you look for specifics, if you look for any evidence that someone he audited is actually "cause over matter, energy, space, time, life and thought", you won't find any.

Now, I don't mind someone believing whatever they want to believe.  That's their business.  And I do know that Scientology can make some people temporarily feel wonderful.

What I object to is the trap.

Scientology traps people because they promise and promise and promise these miraculous results.  I know of people who, even today, continue to tolerate the most horrible abuses and who ruin themselves to pay and pay and pay -- all because of this one specific promise:  They believe that some day they would be cause over matter, energy, space, time, life and thought.

It's a lie and it is there only to trap people.

I object, as strongly as I can, to anyone who continues to promise this lie in order to trap people within Scientology.

Dear Scientology practitioner:

If you promise "OT" but only deliver a temporary "I feel wonderful" feeling, you trick people into coming back again and again (and paying again and again), believing you will eventually actually deliver on your promise.  It's a trick, and it only works until the person wakes up to the fact that you can't deliver what you promised and that a temporary "I feel wonderful" is as good as it gets.

And since you know you've never delivered "OT", your continuing to "promise" that is fraud.

Stop claiming you can produce the results promised for "Release", "Clear" and "OT" -- because you haven't, no one has!
Tell the truth about what you actually do produce so you are not committing fraud.

-

Scientology and Control

There is "good control" and "bad control."  The difference between them is certainty and uncertainty.

L. Ron Hubbard
New Slant on Life

Most people are not aware of how much Scientology is about control.

This is not emphasized in their literature, nor broadcast when they are trying to sell you things, but much of their technologies are about control -- how to control others.

You will notice, in the quote from L. Ron Hubbard, above, and in all teachings of Scientology, that nothing is said, and nothing is taught about ethical control.  "Good" control is defined as effectively getting others to carry out your wishes, no matter what those wishes are, no matter what the other person might wish.

Let's look at specific examples.

The "Communications" Course

The Scientology Communications Course, which is one of their introductory courses, is promoted as teaching a person how to "communicate effectively".  This course utilizes Hubbard's "TR Drills" to do this.  These TR Drills are done on many courses as one trains on Scientology technologies.

And what are the goals of these TR Drills?  The TRs are there to specifically and only teach a person how to get their commands complied with or get their questions answered.  Period.  They have no other purpose.

How to have a normal conversation?  Not taught.  How to create a friendly environment where normal conversations can take place?  Not taught.  How to make people feel at ease and draw them out?  Not taught.

No, the Communications Course and all courses that utilize the TRs are only teaching a person how to control others through communication.

Hubbard's Tone Scale

Here is a simplified version of the Tone Scale:

4.0   Enthusiasm
3.5   Cheerfulness
3.0   Conservatism
2.5   Boredom
2.0   Antagonism
1.5   Anger
1.1   Covert hostility
1.0   Fear
0.5   Grief
0.0   Death

Many people have now seen this scale.  The emotions are pretty easy to understand, but what's with all those numbers?

It's all about control.  Hubbard created and taught his tone scale as a method of controlling others.  No more, no less.  Hubbard taught that, if you assumed a "tone level" that was .5 to 1.0 above another's tone, you could control them, and make them do what you want.  Or, you could assume a "tone level" .5 to 1.0 below their tone to drive them "down tone" and make them ineffective.

It's all about control.

The "ARC Triangle"

L. Ron Hubbard taught that Affinity, Reality and Communication were the three corners of this ARC Triangle.  When dealing with others, if you raised one, you would automatically raise the other two.  If you lowered one, you would automatically lower the other two.

In other words, the purpose of this "ARC Triangle" is to control others.

Lying

The only way to control people is to lie to them.

L. Ron Hubbard

On Control and Lying

Scientologists are taught, from very early on, not to tell non-Scientologists all about Scientology.  Don't talk about past lives.  Don't talk about "space opera".  Don't talk about OT.  Scientologists are carefully coached as to what to say and how to say it.  And what not to say.

They call this "acceptable truths", "shore stories", "communicating at the proper 'reality level'" and other such euphemisms for lying.

Scientologists are told such lying is necessary because, otherwise, the public wouldn't respond correctly and wouldn't come in.  In other words, Scientologists are taught to tell lies in order to control the public and bring them in.

It's all about control

There are many, many other examples of this in Scientology. Hubbard taught that there were many key phrases to cave a person in -- so you could control them.  Hubbard said that certain images from OT III materials would control people and cause them to be unable to resist buying his books.  Hubbard believed in positioning as a way to secretly control the way people thought about Scientology so that they would react favorably, without facts and without logic.

Control is a major part of Scientology.  Controlling people.  Controlling you.

So, when you are trying to have a conversation with a Scientologist, they are using "communication" to control you.  When you try to be open about your emotions with a Scientologist, they are figuring out which "tone level" to use to control you.  They are working to manipulate your affinity, reality and communication to control you.

And, when you are looking for the truth, Scientologists are trying to figure out which "acceptable truth" to tell you -- to control you.

Hopefully, this will help people understand why talking with Scientologists so often seems artificial, stilted, awkward and non-sequitur.  Scientologists have had all their natural social skills replaced with Scientology techniques for control.
-

Scientology In Perspective

We're not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn't cute or something to do for lack of something better.

The whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology.

This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance.

Remember, this is our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the past. Don't muff it now...

L. Ron Hubbard

Keeping Scientology Working Series 1

Scientologists live in a mythical world of titanic, universe-wide, trillion year struggles between Ultimate Good and Ultimate Evil.

The above quote from L. Ron Hubbard has been read by every single Scientologist many times.  They believe it with all their hearts.

Today, they are fighting for their very survival and the survival of "every Man, Woman and Child".  I simply cannot exaggerate how very serious and  crucial everything is to a Scientologist.

Every time David Miscavige announces his fictional "Good News", it is a sign that Ultimate Good is winning.  But every protest, every bad news article, every exposé on TV is a sign that Ultimate Evil is winning.

It is all so very, very, very important.  To them.

And sometimes, with all this importance being artificially imprinted on Scientology by Scientologists, it is difficult to keep things in perspective.

Let's look at reality, shall we?

Scientology doesn't exist.  That is the reality in the rest of the world.  Outside of Scientology and its critics, Scientology really doesn't show up on the radar of most people.  A few might know that Scientology has something to do with Tom Cruise, and that's about it.  To most of the world, Scientology simply does not exist.

Scientology's "solutions" have been tried in a very few places, but were found to be expensive and to not work very well.  So these "solutions" have been, or are being, dropped wherever they were tried.  You look for what effect Scientology is having on the world and the answer is: None.  For all their posturing and bragging, their results are nowhere to be found.  It's like they don't exist.

Psychiatrists are not much aware of Scientology.  They know that, for some reason, Scientology attacks them, but, since the effects of those attacks are negligible, it doesn't matter to psychiatrists what they do.

Politicians are finding out that, as celebrities already know, association with the fraudulent, deceitful Church of Scientology is a huge negative to their careers.  The church has no influence there.

And, actually, Scientology is not very important to Scientology's critics either.  Yes, critics care about the victims.  Yes, they want the abuse, lies, fraud and crimes to be stopped.  Yes, they want the destroyed families to be brought back together.  But criticizing and protesting Scientology is what they do with their spare time.  It isn't their life, it isn't their survival, it isn't some "epic battle".

Outside of Scientology's bubble, Scientology just isn't important. 

In this struggle, Scientology is fighting a desperate fight for "the whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman and Child on it," while its critics are happily living their lives and, occasionally, when they have some spare time, criticizing and protesting Scientology.
-

More on the Scientology E-Meter

Now that I've upset those who believed that the e-meter didn't work, I'll now really upset those who believe it does.

In my last article, I gave examples of tests and drills that appeared to prove that the e-meter reacts to thoughts.  I also mentioned that it reacts to a lot more than just thoughts.

I also presented Hubbard's explanation as to how and why it works.  I even said it was a reasonable explanation that fit the facts.  But, on purpose, I skipped the complications and contradictions between the theory and practice.

Let's delve a bit deeper into this subject.

To repeat the basic theory according to Hubbard, some thoughts have "charge".  When a person "activates" the charge by thinking some thought, the associated charge impinges on the body changes the body's resistance.  The meter measures these changes.

The charge, according to Hubbard, comes from some past trauma, which was called, in Dianetics, an "engram" - essentially a moment of pain and unconsciousness.

While this seems pretty far-fetched, the "pinch test" (as described in my last article) certainly seems to validate this idea.  No matter the theory, the "pinch test" proves that the meter does react to a thought (or, to appease the more critical reader, a thought can impinge on the body in a way that is detectable by the e-meter).

But I want to emphasize that this is all that it proves.  There is a lot of Hubbard's theory that is not proven and, in fact, doesn't make much sense.

First, let me tell you a bit more about Hubbard's explanation of the e-meter. Hubbard said that the e-meter reacts to charge that is "just below the person's awareness". This means that the person is not aware of the problem, but is "ready to confront it".  As the person becomes aware of the problem, the charge "blows" and it no longer "reads" on the e-meter.

By the way, this part of Hubbard's theory about his e-meter is necessary to explain why so many things do not register on the e-meter until later up The Bridge -- the person, you see, "isn't ready to confront" the higher levels.

That's the theory about the e-meter that is accepted by Scientologists.

But when you get into actual practice, things start to fall apart.

First, let's visit the Scientology course room again.  When you are learning how to operate the e-meter, you must do the "Dating Drill".  In this drill, one student thinks of a date and writes it down, the second student puts the first student on the e-meter and attempts to find out the date using only the e-meter. 

Now, if Hubbard's theory about the e-meter is correct, this drill would never work.  There is no trauma (and therefore no charge) associated with that date.  And the first student is fully aware of the date -- it isn't "just below his awareness".

So why does the Dating Drill work?  There is only one explanation: It works because they believe it should.

Oops!  That isn't part of the theory -- and that drill alone destroys the certainty about any read on the e-meter.  If something reads only because someone believes it should, then how can anyone determine which reads are "real" and which are "belief"?

In this same theme, let's look at a question asked at the beginning of every session about a person's "witholds" (things they have hidden and don't want found out).  Why do they read on the meter?  Where is the trauma?  The meter may read even though no one was hurt at all.  The person may have participated in some victimless, harmless activity that is nobody's business -- and the meter reads.  Why?  Because the person was afraid it would.  All Scientology auditors know this happens but they don't question it.  According to theory, the meter shouldn't read because the person is fully aware of what they did, there was no trauma and there was no harm.

Well, what if a person doesn't believe the e-meter will react?  What happens then?  Well, apparently the meter doesn't react.  You get the all too frequent situation where a Scientology criminal continues their criminal activities for years and years -- all while getting auditing.  Apparently, they don't believe the meter will react to their crimes, and it doesn't.

All these contradictions between theory and practice suggest a rather different theory than Hubbard's: The e-meter reacts not only to actual memories of actual "trauma", but also reacts because the person on the meter believes or fears that it will.

Do you see what this means?

This means that the e-meter is almost completely useless, since a reaction on the meter might indicate a real problem or it might not -- and the meter cannot detect the difference.

One result of this is the incredibly bizarre "4 trillion year past track history" that is accepted as truth by Scientologists but is logically, obviously and scientifically proven to be false.

Another result is that it seems there are thousands of Scientologists who were famous people. In fact, there are many who share being the same famous person -- and all these past identities were fully verified by the e-meter.

But the worst result of these reads-just-because-they-believe is the entire Bridge.  Scientologists, and their auditors, believed they were uncovering and "handling" vast amounts of past track incidents of trauma and upset -- 4 trillion years of it, no less -- but what is the truth?  No one has become Clear.  No one has become OT.  Scientologists, even those high up The Bridge are struggling.  Where are the miraculous gains and the incredible abilities that were promised and were supposedly delivered?

They believed and the e-meter showed them what they expected to see.
-

How Scientologists Will Destroy Scientology

We all know that the Church of Scientology has collapsed but that isn't the subject of today's post.  Today I'm talking about the belief system of Scientology as embodied by the ex-churchies calling themselves "Independent Scientologists".

A number of these stalwart true believers are factually and thoroughly destroying Scientology.

Now, in my opinion, some parts of the Scientology technology are beneficial, or could potentially be useful, and should be investigated.  A majority of Scientology technology could be considered harmless -- if someone wants to work with it, no known harm will befall them.

A small, but growing, portion of Scientology is harmful, destructive or just plain evil.  The Church of Scientology itself, under David Miscavige's direction, has been emphasizing and building upon these harmful parts. It now could be said, with some validity, that the evil parts of Scientology have become the dominant technology used by the church.

Earlier escapees from the Church of Scientology, often referred to as the Freezone, have, for the most part, discarded such harmful aspects of Scientology.  However, many of the newer ex-churcies, these new "Independent Scientologists" seem to have embraced the most disturbing, most barbaric, most tyrannical aspects of Scientology as practiced by the Church of Scientology.

Early on, L. Ron Hubbard said that Scientologists should not consider Scientology the only way out, and not even the best possible way out.  They should, he said, only consider Scientology as a workable way out.

Hubbard also admonished his followers, most specifically auditors, to never, ever invalidate or evaluate for others.

As with David Miscavige's Church of Scientology, a number of these "Independent Scientologists" do not seem to follow these precepts from Hubbard.  They are offensive, insulting and arbitrary.

They will tell you that Scientology is perfect, and that all other technologies are wrong-wrong-wrong.  And if you don't agree with them, completely, you are evil, you have crimes, you must accept the "truth" of Scientology and follow all the "formulas" and "procedures" to "correct yourself" and become a good, compliant, obedient, "standard" Scientologist.

These autocratic Scientologists are heavily into labels: you are a Suppressive Person; you are a "No Case Gain" case; you have "continuous present time" crimes, and on and on.

They are always and forever right, can never be wrong and you must agree with them or suffer the appropriate consequences.  They can dictate to the rest of the world because they are applying STANDARD SCIENTOLOGY.

Of course this only describes a few of the "Independent Scientologists", but they are the vocal ones -- and few of the others dare voice any disagreement!

It's the Church of Scientology mindset all over again.  The threats, the accusations, the labels, the invalidation and evaluation, the capricious and punitive "assignment of conditions", the attempt to dictate what other people see and think, and the suppression of dissent.

This attitude and public face of Scientology guarantees the destruction of Scientology.  Sane people will categorically reject these tinpot dictators and their crazy communication.  Appropriately so.

Obviously, I'm not talking to these fanatics. I wouldn't expect these self-proclaimed "STANDARD SCIENTOLOGISTS" to listen to reason -- but I do expect the other Independent Scientologists, who are sane, who do know better, to challenge these fanatics.  If you truly believe in Scientology, then you must protect it from the fanatics.  You must let them know that they do not speak for Scientology and they do not speak for Scientologists.  Call them out for the fanatics they are.

More than the fanatics, it is the silence of other Scientologists in the face of such fanaticism that guarantees the destruction of Scientology.
-

Scientology: Why "Religion"?

Recently, I was asked to look at why Scientology characterizes itself as a religion.

Anyone who pays any attention to the various controversies surrounding David Miscavige's Church of Scientology knows that there is a lot of information available about this "religion" angle. It is obvious that the Church of Scientology was set up and is run like a business, and that the whole "religion" thing was tacked on as an afterthought, so the question is, "Why?"

Why does Scientology call itself a religion? And why is it important?

We'll look at "why" in a bit. First, let's look at who says it is a religion. The answer may surprise you.

Did Hubbard call Scientology a religion? Well... no. And yes. Originally, Hubbard was quite emphatic -- Scientology is not a religion:

Scientology has opened the gates to a better world. It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion.

L. Ron Hubbard
Page 251, Creation of Human Ability 1954
(Statement removed from later editions, for obvious reasons)

Later, Hubbard changed his mind and declared that Scientology actually was a religion. Hubbard's decision to start claiming Scientology as a religion was highly unpopular with many Dianeticists and Scientologists at that time and many did, in fact, leave because of it.

OK, who else says Scientology is a religion?

Does the Church of Scientology itself call Scientology a religion? Well... yes -- and very emphatically, NO!

Surprised? It's very, very true.

The Church of Scientology is "recognized as a religion" in only a small handful of countries. It is difficult to get an exact count, but it appears to be officially recognized in only eight or nine countries. Period. In case you were wondering, there are almost 200 countries in the world.

Now, you would think that the Church of Scientology would be fighting for religious recognition in all the rest of the countries, but, in most places in the world, Scientology itself insists that it is not a religion!

Check out Scientology's official presentation of itself in Israel. Check out Scientology's official presentation of itself in any predominantly Catholic country (like Mexico or even Spain where "church" and "religion" are in English only). Check out Scientology's official presentation of itself in any predominantly Muslim country. Check it out. See what Scientology says about whether it is a religion or not. The Church of Scientology says it is not a religion in most countries. In most areas of the world, Scientology's organizations are called "centers" or "associations" or something, but the words "religion" and "church" are not included.

Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi in the Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 8, No. 1 (September 2003) writes about Scientology:

6. Self-Presentation as a Secular Movement.
Some Scientology representatives state that the so-called church is not a religion. When a Scientology branch opened in Japan in 1985, it was careful to present itself as a 'philosophy' and not a religion (Kent, 1999). In the United States, an article in a Maine newspaper that solicited thoughts about the "new millennium" from local church leaders reports that "Barbara Fisco, mission holder of the Church of Scientology in Brunswick, said that Scientology is not a religion and therefore not subject to the religious implications of the Year 2000" (Smith, 1999\www.timesrecord.com/main/79c6.html_).

The case of Scientology in Israel is quite instructive. In various organizational forms, Scientology has been active among Israelis for more than thirty years, but those in charge not only never claimed the religion label, but resisted any such suggestion or implication. It has always presented itself as a secular, self-improvement, tax-paying business. Otherwise, they offered the familiar products and deceptions, from the Oxford Capacity Analysis to Dianetics and Purification. The current Israeli franchise holder told me rather proudly that he pays all required taxes. In its history as a commercial venture, the organization still got into legal trouble, and was charged with tax evasion at least once.

Now isn't that so odd? A "religion" that, well, if that interferes with the business operation, just casually drops the whole "church" façade in an instant. When it interferes with business, it turns out the "religion angle" isn't important at all.

It could be argued that the organization that is most vocal and most insistent, around the world, that Scientology is "not a religion" is ... the Church of Scientology.

So, finally and inevitably we come to the question, "Why?" Why does Scientology characterize itself as "a religion"?

Well, we have to reword the question now, don't we? In context of the above, it no longer is a correct question. In most of the world Scientology vehemently insists that it is not a religion. So the question is incorrect. The accurate question is:

Why does Scientology only call itself "a religion" in a few, selected countries, but insists on calling itself a "self-improvement business", a "philosophy", a "community group" or something else equally non-religious, in the rest of the world?

Worded correctly, the answer now becomes much more obvious.

Pay close attention here. This is key. The factor that determines whether Scientology claims to be a religion is not what Scientologists believe. This doesn't change from country to country. The factor that determines this is not what Scientologists do. This also doesn't change. The deciding factor that determines whether Scientology claims to be a religion or not is the balance between the benefits and liabilities of doing so. That's a business consideration.

When Hubbard implemented this "religion" angle he wrote:

Scientology 1970 is being planned on a religious organization basis throughout the world. This will not upset in any way the usual activities of any organization. It is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors.

L. Ron Hubbard
Policy Letter 29 Oct. 1962, "Religion"

Get it? "Accountants and solicitors". It was then, and is today, solely a business matter. What are the benefits? What are the liabilities? In the United States, there is considerable legal protection and there are vast tax benefits for being a religion. The liabilities are relatively small. Sure, that "religion angle" has caused problems, like Albuquerque where Scientology wanted to move into a business location which was deemed "inappropriate for a church". Oh, Scientology sure wanted a variance then. They wanted to be treated like a business.

Their front groups are the Church of Scientology's attempt to have their cake and eat it too. The front groups are supposed to allow the church into areas barred from churches -- like attempts to get Scientology's children recruitment group, the Drug Free Marshals, into New Mexico schools. Unfortunately for Scientology, the group was linked back to the church, and then appropriately barred from the schools.

But all in all, the benefits in the U.S. outweigh the liabilities, so "it's a religion!"

In other countries, the balance is different. And, as is often the case, when the liabilities of calling itself a religion are too great, "it's a business!"

And that's the answer to "Why 'Religion'?" It's just a "good business decision". As some of the less ethical business executives might say, "If you can get away with it, why not?"

How pragmatic! How practical!

How hypocritical!
-

Hubbard, Miscavige and "Power"

One of David Miscavige's favorite pieces of Hubbard writing is "The Responsibilities of Leaders," which was a critique by L. Ron Hubbard of a book The Four Seasons of Manuela. A Biography. The Love Story of Manuela Sàenz and Simòn Bolivar written in 1952 by Victor Wolfgang von Hagen.

Simòn Bolivar, of course, was the great South American revolutionary leader, and Manuela Sàenz was his mistress and confidant.

Hubbard wrote his critique of von Hagen's book as an official church policy letter dated 12 February 1967.

Miscavige is so enamored with this policy letter, that he had copies of Hubbard's letter made for all of his celebrity friends one year as gifts, and in 2003 he had copies of the von Hagen book made for his celebrity friends, including Tom Cruise.

Hubbard's analysis of this book says more about Hubbard's own personality than about Simòn Bolivar or Manuela Sàenz.

His main critique of Bolivar and Sàenz was that they were not ruthless enough - they were "too idealistic."

Listen to some of his criticisms of Manuela Sàenz:

"...she never collected or forged or stole any documents to bring down enemies..."

"...she never used a penny to buy a quick knife..."

"She never handed over any daughter of a family clamoring against her to Negro troops and then said, 'Which oververbal family is next?'"

Presumably Hubbard would have done these things to maintain power - forgery, theft, murder, rape.

He concludes:

"Life bleeds. It suffers. It hungers. And it has to have the right to shoot its enemies until such time as comes a golden age."

Yep, you read that right - "the right to shoot its enemies."

He also states,

"...the foremost law, if one's ambition is to win, is of course to win."

That's right, the foremost law. So things like murder, robbery and forgery are above normal law because that it what is needed to "win."

There's more.

Hubbard lays out his seven principles of power. These are chilling. Some excerpts:

"When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on the nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with your pockets full of artillery, potential blackmail on every erstwhile rival, unlimited funds in your private account and the addresses of experienced assassins and go live in Bulgravia and bribe the police."

And here's how to be a good subordinate and support a power:

"He doesn't have to know all the bad news and if he's a power really, he won't ask all the time, 'What are all those dead bodies doing at the door?' And if you are clever, you never let it be thought HE killed them - that weakens you and also hurts the power source. 'Well, boss, about all those dead bodies, nobody at all will suppose you did it. She over there, those pink legs sticking out, didn't like me.'"

And:

"...always push power in the direction of anyone on whose power you depend. It may be more money for the power or more ease or a snarling defense of the power to a critic or even the dull thud of one of his enemies in the dark or the glorious blaze of the whole enemy camp as a birthday surprise."

That's how you're supposed to support a senior - get him more and more money and kill his enemies.

This is what Scientology executives are trained on. This is what Scientologists are trained on. This is what celebrities are trained on. Anything is OK as long as it "pushes power to power" and the foremost law is to win. And if you are serious about winning, anything goes - theft, blackmail, bribery, forgery, rape, and murder.

Scientologists will justify this - as I did when I was in. "Oh, he's just speaking metaphorically" and so on. To them, I say, read it again. This is Hubbard's view of power. This is Miscavige's idea of power. It is the way the Church of Scientology operates! Not metaphorically - but actually.

Someday they will try to remove all copies of this document from circulation and say Hubbard never wrote it, but for now they are arrogant enough to publish it broadly.

Scientologists are not only obsessed with power, they are indoctrinated into Hubbard's view of power - the ruthless use of any means to achieve one's goal.
-

Scientologists: What Freedom?

Dear Scientologist,

You are on your way, perhaps well on your way, up the Church of Scientology's "Bridge to Total Freedom", right?

So, I want to know exactly what increased freedoms you're experiencing. After all, if this is a path to "Total Freedom", you must have greater freedoms.

So, what, in your life, is more free?

Can you speak freely? Can you think what you want? Say what you think? Or are you only "free" to think and speak those things sanctioned by the Church of Scientology? Free people do not think, talk and act just like everyone else in their environment; trapped people must only agree. Which are you? Can you speak freely?

Are you free to question what you are told by L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige, or anyone else in authority in the church? Do you honestly think these people have never, ever made a mistake or caused a problem? You know you may not question what you are told by the Church of Scientology. Such questions will only get you in trouble. This is not increased freedom.

Are you free to participate, or not participate, in activities of your own creation and choosing? Or are you under duress to participate and give money to activities exactly as defined and executed by the Church of Scientology? It isn't "volunteer" if you are forced to participate. It isn't freedom.

Are you free to ask about the church? Do you know what the real overall statistics of the Church of Scientology are? Do you know what the IAS actually spends your money on? Do you know who is really running your church? When you hear rumors about your church, do you feel free to ask someone about those rumors? Do you feel free to ask those sorts of questions? If you do ask such questions, you know you will get reported to Ethics.

Are you free to talk to anyone you want to? Are you free to talk to everyone in your family? Are you free to talk to all of your friends? Or must you only talk to Scientologists and those who are careful never to disagree with the Church of Scientology? If there are restrictions on who you can talk to, can you consider yourself free?

Are you free to leave Scientology? This is the ultimate freedom that Scientology could impart, freedom to leave, if you so wish it. But, according to the church, this must never happen. According to the church, you are not free to leave. Your church doesn't want you really free.

So, the question for you, on the "Bridge to Total Freedom" is, what freedom? What freedom have you gained from being part of the Church of Scientology? In what part of your life is there more freedom?

There is no evidence that there is any increase of freedom for those on the "Bridge to Total Freedom". Instead, all that happens on this "Bridge to Total Freedom" is less and less freedom.

And where does less and less freedom end up? Slavery. You don't reach freedom by becoming a slave. There is no freedom at the end of the Church of Scientology's "Bridge to Total Freedom".
-

Scientology: 3rd Party "Law"

No, this "Third Party" does not refer to a third party like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. This "third party" is a "law" expounded by L. Ron Hubbard as a "breakthrough in resolving conflicts". He says:

WHILE IT IS COMMONLY BELIEVED TO TAKE TWO TO MAKE A FIGHT, A THIRD PARTY MUST EXIST AND MUST DEVELOP IT FOR ACTUAL CONFLICT TO OCCUR.

It is very easy to see that two in conflict are fighting. They are very visible. What is harder to see or suspect is that a third party existed and actively promoted the quarrel.

...

The hidden third party, seeming at times to be a supporter of only one side, is to be found as the instigator.

This is a useful law in many areas of life.

L. Ron Hubbard
The Third Party Law.

While it is doubtful that this "law" is as absolute as Hubbard says, it is important for non-Scientologists to understand it because this is a technique that the Church of Scientology firmly believes and will use and is using as a weapon against their perceived enemies. Whether this could ever be used to resolve conflicts isn't particularly important. What is important is that this technique can be used to create and prolong conflicts.

Perhaps one could call this sort of thing "Black Scientology," the idea of using Scientology techniques to damage people and create chaos to the church's benefit. It seems like the Church of Scientology does that a lot.

Here is how it works:

The Church of Scientology keeps feeding all Scientologists a constant stream of "information" about Scientology critics and, especially, Anonymous. They "document" how these enemies are part of the world-wide conspiracy against Scientology. They "document" how Anonymous is being funded by the big drug companies. They "document" how Anonymous is made up of evil communists who are using Hubbard's Brainwashing Manual for their operating manual (of course, they don't mention Hubbard wrote it).

This has many benefits for David Miscavige and his henchmen:

• It keeps Scientologists upset and afraid. This is very important for control. Scientologists won't look outside the church for information because "it's too dangerous!"
  
• They can extort a lot more money from Scientologists to "fight this major enemy".
• It ensures that Scientologists will reject any information from Anonymous.
• It distracts attention away from the crimes, abuses and fraud brought up by Anonymous and Scientology critics.
  

But, of course, this is only half the job. To properly use Hubbard's "Third Party" technique, the Church of Scientology also has to feed false information to Anonymous.

Given the nature of the Internet and the loose organization and anonymity of the group Anonymous, this is very, very simple.

The Church of Scientology, through their "secret police" group OSA (Office of Special Affairs), have created various Anonymous persona who urge illegal and destructive actions against Scientologists and Scientology churches. These false Anonymous want Anonymous to go back to their *chan roots. Any attacks that make Anonymous look evil and the Church of Scientology a "victim" are encouraged.

The benefits of this are simple:

• As long as Anonymous sounds sane and non-violent, people will listen; people will agree. This must be stopped.
• The church has called Anonymous "terrorists". They need Anonymous to start acting like that again.
• Violent and illegal actions by Anonymous would help keep Scientologists upset and afraid, which means more control and more money for Miscavige.
• Violent and illegal actions are the perfect justification for all the evil that the Church of Scientology does. "We must do these things, look what they did to us!"
  
• If Anonymous focuses on Miscavige's crimes, the church loses. If Anonymous goes off on any other tangent, the church wins.
  

Now, of course, not everyone who parrots this OSA-as-Anonymous attack line is OSA. I'm not saying that. However, be very, very sure OSA is pushing this idea. OSA is constantly working to make Anonymous go illegal and go violent. They want this very badly.

The Church of Scientology (meaning David Miscavige) likes this conflict. Miscavige wants Scientologists and Anonymous to fight. He is making a lot of money off of this fight and he wants a lot more.
-

Scientology's Internet Trolls

Troll: A user of a newsgroup, forum or message board who posts messages with the intent of inciting an argument or flame-war.

If you spend any time browsing the Internet, you have undoubtedly run into trolls, those people who post comments on forums, message boards and newsgroups that contain inflammatory, false and/or misleading information. Usually, the intention is to trick other users into getting into endless and useless arguments.

With Church of Scientology trolls, they have the added intentions to:

• Divert attention from all the negative information about the Church of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.
• Pollute any discussion thread about Scientology's crimes with flame wars, insults and ugly accusations.
• Forward all Church of Scientology attacks, lies and disinformation.
• Bury negative information about the church under random, off-topic comments.
• Fake outrageous, crazy and embarrassing comments, allegedly from Scientology critics but actually from the Scientology trolls.
  

They have orders and they have an agenda. The basic job of the Scientology trolls is to suppress the truth. They work all the time to suppress Freedom of Speech. (Just imagine the poor soul who accepts that as their job.)

Scientology's trolls appear to be similar to regular trolls or to very stupid people. It is sometimes difficult to differentiate between these different types of troublemakers.

The Scientology Troll has specific characteristics:

• Always states "I am not a Scientologist".
• Always parrots the Church of Scientology party line.
• Always attacks anyone the church wants attacked.
• Always "gets very upset" when outed as a Scientologist or an OSA troll.
• They persist in forwarding the church's agenda even after all their false claims have been debunked and disproven. This is because they are not allowed to move from that position.
  
• They claim to have read any referenced web sites containing the truth about the Church of Scientology, but they remain completely ignorant of such information.

"You're a cult!" "No, you're a cult!"

The latest party line from the Church of Scientology is for their OSA trolls to call everyone and everything a "cult". The attempt, apparently, is to water the word down into meaninglessness. Right now, the trolls call all churches "cults" and, amusingly, have even been working to brand Anonymous as a "cult".

This has the hallmarks of being another "bright idea" from David Miscavige.

I, and many others, have addressed this issue. There are some rather vague definitions of "cult" which makes this kind of deception possible. After all, there are "cult movies" and "band cults". However, if you use any definition of destructive cult, such as laid out in Dr. Robert Lifton's Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, or the great information on cults and mind control by Steve Hassan, you will see the ambiguities disappear.

Destructive cults are rather few and identifying them is pretty straightforward—and the Church of Scientology does not want you looking at them with that definition in mind!

So, the big push by OSA trolls is to muddy all the discussions of Scientology crimes with this bogus and usually off-topic accusation of "you're a cult!"

"I am not a Scientologist"

This may be one of the most amusing claims of the OSA trolls. They are very, very insistent that they are not a Scientologist. If you out them as an OSA troll they get very, very upset—and loud.

Sometimes, to forward this masquerade they will even say something mildly disrespectful of the Church of Scientology (but if they mention any wrongdoing on the part of the church, it is dismissed as far in the past and well-justified).

You think "Gee, they're so insistent, maybe they aren't a Scientologist." But, you see, they hew exactly to the Church of Scientology party line. They always attack those the church wants attacked. Their only activities are to forward the Church of Scientology's agenda. Period.

There are two possibilities when someone does this consistently: Either they are an OSA troll who has specific orders, or they are very, very stupid and believe the Church of Scientology's lies. I figure I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by calling them OSA trolls. I really hate to call someone "abysmally stupid".

Insults, not logic

You can never get an OSA troll to work through the facts logically. If you carefully document the falsity of a dozen of their claims, they will bring up a dozen more, equally false. When you carefully document those as lies, they go back to their original false claims and pretend those were never disproven. This can go on forever. They never can and never will admit that all their "facts" from the church are totally bogus.

And if you make good points and disprove their claims, they inevitably answer with ... insults! You might think you're having a rational discussion when suddenly, they will start calling you vicious, insulting names. That means you won the argument. You see, since they are required to adhere to the Church of Scientology party line, and since the party line is composed only of lies, misinformation and is totally illogical, there is no possibility they can defend their position. So, when they are totally proven wrong, what can they do? Why, throw insults and flame around to completely distract and degrade the discussion. (They seem fond of yelling "Nazi".)

The OSA trolls used to be more effective than they are today. Today, their tricks are pretty well known, and their efforts are laughable.

Scientology trolls: You lose!

For the Church of Scientology and their OSA trolls, it is a losing battle. They may temporarily divert the discussion of the church's crimes in a few forums, but the flood of facts about the Church of Scientology's crimes cannot be stopped. Their efforts are like a teaspoon against the flood. The church's trolls are the laughingstock of the Internet, easily spotted and easily handled.

The church's newest "everything is a cult" campaign will backfire, as do all of their "clever" tricks; the flood of truth will continue.

The truth about the Church of Scientology is known. And, boy, do they hate that!
-

Scientology: The First Lesson

To become a Scientologist, you must have one primary belief. Without it, you can never become a Scientologist. With it, you are golden.

You must believe that L. Ron Hubbard is All-Knowing, All-Seeing, Perfect and Always Right.

And they do. Completely.

You see, this is the very first lesson you learn in Scientology. At the start of each and every course you take, you must first understand and agree with Hubbard's Policy Letter "Keeping Scientology Working". In this policy letter, Hubbard modestly states that he has all the answers, that he is the only one who has these answers, that it is impossible for anyone to improve on his answers and that anyone who disagrees with all that is a very, very bad person, who must be stopped. I'm paraphrasing.

Once you've completely understood and agreed with that policy letter, you are allowed to continue on to the course material. Every course starts with this policy letter.

And the proof that Hubbard, or the Church of Scientology, or anyone gives that Hubbard was, is and will always be right is:

(absolutely nothing)

Yes, that's right, nobody has ever presented any evidence that Hubbard has these powers of always being right and knowing everything.

It is belief, in the purest sense of that word. Absolute, complete, perfect belief that "Hubbard is always right!"

This is why it is impossible to argue with a Scientologist. It goes like this:

You: The Church of Scientology has committed crimes, abuses, fraud. It lies.
Scientologist: Aha! It is proven that everyone who criticizes Scientology is guilty of horrible crimes for which they could be arrested, and they are all in the pay of a vast evil conspiracy. You are evil! I will destroy you!
You: Umm... what proof do you have of any of that?
Scientologist: Ron said it!

And there it is. How can you argue with that? That is the ultimate "proof", "Ron said it". Per that policy letter, it must be true.

To get even more weird, not only do Scientologists believe that, if Ron said it, it is true, they also believe that if Ron did not say something, it isn't true! So you get things like the Freewinds asbestos disaster. Some people are reporting that the Scientologists in charge said that since Ron never mentioned the danger of asbestos, it couldn't be harmful!

You see, Scientologists cannot do research or think about something and make up their own minds about it, they can only check with All-Knowing-Ron. If he said something, then, by golly, that's it, it's true. And outside of that, everything else is false! No thinking, no investigation, no logic, just read what Ron said and then stop. Stop investigating, stop looking, stop thinking, stop.

The really hard-core Scientologists have gotten so good at doing this that they believe they are thinking and investigating. They very carefully "think like Ron" and then "investigate" what Ron said, and then "do what Ron would do". It is very creepy.

If you're a Scientologist, then whatever Ron said must be true or you will get ... "retrained" until you can make it true for yourself. You must go through whatever convoluted, rube-goldberg, twisted type of logic to make it work out to be true. It's a skill you must develop as a Scientologist, to only see how Ron is right and be blind to anything that might show he was wrong.

Ron promised OT super powers but never, ever exhibited any such powers himself. Nor has any other Scientologist.

Ron claimed he was better at administration and organizing than any other person in the whole world, but Scientologists have to pretend, real hard, to believe the disasters he created around the world are "successful, well run organizations".

Ron spoke of a vast evil conspiracy, composed of "International Bankers", drug companies and the always-evil psychiatrists, but he never presented any evidence of its existence. He even claimed to have completely uncovered the whole evil organization, but never presented any facts at all. To this day, no one outside of Ron has ever seen any hint of such a conspiracy. But they believe.

These, and a million other claims, are accepted whole, without ever any proof, by all Scientologists. All because of that first Policy Letter on their first course. The primary belief that they learned then: Ron is always right and anyone who disagrees is not only wrong but very, very evil.
-

Scientology's Real Battle

The Church of Scientology's most important fight is not with Anonymous. While this is part of the fight, it isn't the main fight. The protests could go away, and the church's real battle would continue.

The Church of Scientology's key fight is not with any Scientology critic, either. Again, they are a factor, but they are only another aspect of the fight.

Even the church's battle with web sites such as Wikileaks, Wikipedia are not the real fight.

These web sites, people and groups are all factors in the church's ultimate fight, but the fight is much more basic than that.

The Church of Scientology is fighting Truth.

Hubbard always was a storyteller. From the beginning he wove a rather fantastic patchwork quilt with colorful patches of imagination stitched together with threads of truth. He included just enough truth to hold the whole thing together and carry it forward. It was exciting to some. It sold.

Perhaps this patchwork was as he intended, or perhaps he got carried away with his own vision and started believing his own stories. In any case, when he died, what he left the church to work with had become a bit tattered. What he had claimed for Clear and OT far outstripped what he had ever, actually been able to deliver.

In actual fact, this was true of most of Hubbard's claims. The incredible successes that he claimed for his life, his philosophy, his technology and his administrative practices were just not showing up. Anyone who could view the whole fabric of Hubbard's creation would see the great gaping holes. It wasn't holding together.

It is entirely possible that it is because of these gaps between promises and delivery that Hubbard instituted a considerable level of secrecy in the Church of Scientology. All the information about Clear and OT was "confidential". Even the "OT" information that Hubbard had written and spoken about openly in the earlier days became secret, now. In addition, the management and statistics of the church became hidden. Bit by bit, the church, its management, its practices, its results, went into hiding.

This trend continued and accelerated after Hubbard's death, with whole organizations for upper church management coming into existence whose location, staffing and purposes were very secret.

It became the rule, rather than the exception, to keep secrets—from the world, from Scientologists, even from staff. The church and its activities became shrouded in multiple veils of secrecy, confidentiality and misdirection.

And with this extensive secrecy, inevitably came lies and misinformation. And the veils of secrecy became perfect cover for crimes, abuses and fraud. Agents from the church operated "missions" that were unknown to all but a few individuals at the top. "Operation Snow White", an illegal and covert operation of infiltration of the U.S. Government was carried out by the church under Hubbard's direction. "Operation PC Freakout", the illegal and despicable operation against a journalist who only reported the truth, is another example of the many activities that could only be carried out because of the shrouds of secrecy that now constitute the very fiber of the Church of Scientology.

And for each covert operation that bent, or more often broke, the law, there was the need for more secrecy, more lies, more misdirection, more "cover stories".

And it became the way of life for the Church of Scientology. Even when there was no need to be covert, to lie, it was the way of the church. Even Scientology's outreach programs into society, which, in a normal church, would have been simple and open, were operated by front groups whose connections to the Church of Scientology were buried or concealed. And these front groups were then vulnerable to more abuses and lies.

And, because of all the secrecy, the abuses were easy to pull off. The crimes were simple to operate. No one could see. No one was looking. The little bits that were displayed to the world and to the general Scientology public were the carefully selected "clean" bits. "Everything is fine, everything is good. Look at this shiny bit."

But behind the curtain of secrecy, the activities of the Church of Scientology and its upper management became darker and darker. Without visibility, who would ever know?

But there is, and always was, one fatal flaw to all this. The victims of the church's abuse and crimes will talk. Some of the other people who knew about the discreditable secrets would decide to disclose them. The secrets were never, entirely, secret.

And so it has happened with the Church of Scientology. For many years, the church has used an army of lawyers, threats, lawsuits, "Fair Game" tactics, "disconnection", "Suppressive Declares" and other ploys in a frantic attempt to keep their secrets hidden. At times it almost seemed to work, but finally all the church's dodging and ducking has failed. Now these tricks can never work. As much as the church might fight against it, the truth about their activities is out. Very thoroughly and completely exposed. Every day another of the church's secrets is exposed, verified or elaborated on.

So, the Church of Scientology is not, actually, fighting any specific person or group. What the Church of Scientology is fighting is truth and the exposure of its lies. It has already lost—the truth is already out there—their lies are known. Even true believer Scientologists can no longer ignore the truth; they are learning and they are leaving.

Yet, somehow, the church still believes it can suppress the truth and convince the world of their lies. Lost in his own little world, David Miscavige, leader of the Church of Scientology, still pretends that his secrets are all safe and that, somehow, the world still believes the church's lies.
-

Scientology's Admin Tech

Hubbard obviously believed that he was an administrative wiz. He wrote thousands of administrative "Policy Letters" over the years, covering everything from the broad organization structure down to the minutiae of how to clean windows, handle your "in-basket" and how to write letters.

Each and every policy letter is supposed to be followed to the letter in every Scientology organization. That means all the churches and every business using Hubbard's technology.

Some of the dictates from Ron are fairly obvious and seem to work well enough. But overall the result of applying all his policy letters is to cause an organization to, at best, struggle for survival and, more commonly, fail.

There are many examples of how bad this "tech" is. For instance, the whole structure is designed for extreme micro-management. It just invites every level of management to meddle in every employee's job. However, to keep things simple, I'll just expand on one good-sounding but hugely flawed concept.

Statistics.

It sounds okay. Every job someone does has one or more statistics that count the number of products that particular job produces. All the statistics are carefully graphed and actions are taken depending on whether the "stat" went up or down, and by how much.

Sounds like a lot of busy work, but doesn't sound harmful, does it?

It is.

Statistics: a good way to destroy your organization.

Oh, it's a real good idea to know how many widgets your company sold, and how much money in and money out. In general you do need that kind of information and every business does that kind of record keeping.

But every person, every job?

Here's the key part of this "tech". As part of the "handling" of statistics, if a person's statistic is up, that's good, they get rewarded. If their statistic is down, that's bad, they get punished.

Of course. What else would you expect?

And that is not the way to intelligently run a business. Anyone with real world business experience can see what's wrong immediately.

Judging a person's performance on their job by only counting "things" produced in a time period focuses attention narrowly on today or this week. Long-range ideas that might interfere with production for a few weeks, but would greatly improve things long-term will always be abandoned. Actions that improve quality, but decrease quantity must always be ignored. Things that would improve customer service, but which interfere with "getting the stats up" will never happen.

And, because the managers at every level are rewarded for "up stats" and penalized for "down stats" the whole structure becomes narrowly focused on "getting the stats up", every person, every job, every level.

The inevitable result of "stats" is "stat push". This is a heavy demand for ever-higher statistics from management and the frantic doing anything and everything to be able to report higher statistics by the worker.

Imagine a job, a section, a department, a division or a corporation where things like planning, scheduling, improvement, coordination, cooperation, responsiveness are all ignored in favor of "getting the stats up". That's chaos and disaster. It's deadly.

Imagine what happens when a worker must endlessly report higher and higher numbers of products, "or else!" Either the quality goes out the window, or the numbers are faked. As the demands for higher "stats" continue, it is, inevitably, both.

Another side-effect is that the statistics become less and less connected to reality. This is why the Church of Scientology reports eight million members (or is it twenty?) when reality is so much less: They have counted the "Scientologists statistic" for years and the statistic has been a flat-out lie. This is why you can't get off the mailing list: That would cause the "bulk mail out" statistic to go down, and that can't happen. This is why Scientologists get super-hard-sell pressure phone calls for money on Wednesday night: Stats are reported on Thursday and must be up "no matter what!"

The end result is crap products, upset employees, angry customers and eventual and inevitable business failure. And that is solidly built into "statistics" as defined and managed by the Hubbard Administrative Technology.

And, while statistics is considered one of the more important pieces of Hubbard's Admin Tech, it isn't the worst, by far. But that's enough for a sample.

A few times, some Scientologist has attained managerial status in a department of a major corporation and secretly implemented Hubbard Admin Tech in his department. Not going to name any names, but the departments so "enhanced" became disaster zones. Customer and employee complaints helped upper management track down and eradicate the Hubbard Tech to recover sanity. It really doesn't work.

For the True Believers of Scientology, this is hard to take. Their business fails and they blame themselves for not "applying it correctly". But the harder they try, the more exactly they attempt to apply Hubbard's instructions, the deeper they get into trouble. Unless and until they recognize that the fault lies with Hubbard's policies, they can't escape the endless downward spiral of hopelessly applying his policies more and more strictly while their business tanks and their employees suffer.

The Church of Scientology runs strictly on Hubbard Admin Tech. You will have noticed how effective they are. Anyone escaping from Scientology's Sea Org has horror stories relating to Hubbard's Admin Tech and the organizational insanity it engenders. This is just another reason why the Church of Scientology has failed, is failing and will always fail.
-

Scientology: Stopping Communication

If I had to pick one primary, overriding characteristic of the Church of Scientology, it would have to be "stopping communication". Beyond anything else the church does, this is what it does best and most.

Now, I do recognize that this is quite an ironic statement about a church that sells a number of "Communication Courses" and brags that its technology "increases your ability to communicate", but there it is.

The Church of Scientology just does not like any communication that it does not control completely and tightly. The disorderly and uncontrollable Internet drives it completely crazy. It would shut down all references (except its own) to Scientology on the Internet, if only it could.

Questions, comments, stories, discussion, documents and letters: The Church of Scientology opposes everything out there on the Internet and uses all sorts of tricks, both legal and illegal, to try to suppress it.

While the Church of Scientology does support pro-Scientology web sites and pro-Scientology blogs, these are always closed sites. No discussion. Any open discussion, where a negative opinion or fact might appear, is vehemently fought by the church.

But the Church of Scientology's abridgment of communication is not restricted to the Internet. Far from it.

The restriction of communication for new recruits starts early. One of the first things a new Scientologist does, once they have truly accepted the basic doctrines of Scientology, is to drop out of communication with friends and family. At this point, there really isn't any official church requirement that they do so, it just happens rather automatically. The new Scientologist gets wrapped up in the new terminology, the new concepts, the new ways of "communicating" (often referred to as the "Scientology stare"). They no longer feel much connection with the real world. To non-Scientologists, it sure looks like people doing the Scientology "Communications Course" become considerably worse at communicating!

The official restrictions from the Church of Scientology come soon afterwards.

Remember, this is an organization that claims that communication is key, and that Scientology "improves communication"!

One of the few ways that a new Scientologist may still communicate with friends and family will be their attempts to get everyone they know into Scientology. The church even teaches "dissemination drills" (sales patter) for this purpose. Of course, their friends and family will have questions and concerns, especially about the worrisome things they can see and read about Scientology. And this is a problem. Anything negative about Scientology is forbidden and these questions inevitably will concern negative things about Scientology.

The Scientologist may be initially instructed by the church to "handle" their friends and family, but if friends and family still refuse to buy into Scientology's view of things, if they still mention anything negative about Scientology, the Church of Scientology will demand that the Scientologist "disconnect" from (sever all communication with) their friends and family.

At this point, the cessation of communication is official Church of Scientology policy and is strictly enforced.

Keep in mind, this is still the group that prides itself on "improving communication!" And, every chance it gets, it stops communication.

And it does get worse. So far, the Scientologist has been allowed to stay in communication with friends and family only if those friends and family carefully avoid saying anything negative about Scientology. Many family members of Scientologists have learned this and will carefully avoid talking about Scientology with the Scientologist.

But if the Scientologist joins the Sea Org and especially if the Scientologist goes to the International Management compound in Hemet, the restrictions on communication become draconian.

Staff at the "Int. Base" in Hemet are not allowed to own or use cell phones. They are not allowed to own or use a radio or TV. They are not allowed to own a computer and have no access to the Internet. Their letters out are read and censored, their letters in are read and, if deemed unacceptable, discarded without notification. All staff phone calls must be made from specific phones which are monitored by security staff. As a result, staff rarely communicate outside the base, and when they do, the communications are as bland and short as possible. At the top of the Church of Scientology, where, one can assume, Scientology is applied 100%, all day, every day, all communication is stopped!

Stopping communication. It's what the Church of Scientology does.
-