Summer Break

Don't worry if I'm slow in moderating comments for awhile, nothing is wrong.  It's Summer for all of us here in the northern hemisphere -- take a break.

Ask a Question

One of these days, I really need to go back through the previous Ask a Questions and pull out the good stuff -- and somehow present it in a better format.  There really are some great questions and discussions in Ask a Question - 1 and Ask a Question - 2.

But, once again, the most recent Ask a Question got unwieldy, so let's start a new one.

You want to know something about Scientology or the Church of Scientology, ask here!  You have a suggestion?  Put it here.  You want to start an argument or discussion?  Here is the place.  All non-troll, non-spam comments, suggestions, arguments, corrections are greatly appreciated.
-

Scientology and Humor

How many Scientologists does it take to change a light bulb?

First, 12 Scientologists have to carefully research all writings and lectures of L. Ron Hubbard to find everything that LRH ever said that, however remotely, might have something to do with light, lightbulbs, repairs, the effect of electricity on thetans, and so forth.

This research will result in several Scientologists being assigned to revise the official L. Ron Hubbard biography to include the newly discovered fact that Ron actually invented lightbulbs (and, it may be hinted, even light itself).

30 Scientologists will then be assigned by David Miscavige to create a "standard" program, with purposes, policies, major targets, etc., etc. They will work for months to try to get the program approved through David Miscavige.  This approval can never happen.

Eventually, Miscavige will, with great drama, declare everyone a Suppressive Person and "do it all himself" (meaning make minor, unnecessary changes to the original program).

150 Scientologists (everyone left at Int. Base) will then work for years on this program, attempting to create and pilot the "Hubbard Standard Tech Lightbulb Changing Course".  The course will include extensive, new Golden Age of Tech drills for changing lightbulbs.

This will never get approved by Miscavige.

Eventually, Miscavige will, with great drama, declare everyone a Suppressive Person, again, and "do it all himself" (meaning make minor unnecessary changes).

1,256 Scientologists (all Scientologists left in Clearwater) will show up at the Big Release Event put on by Miscavige to wildly applaud this new step in "Bringing Scientology Effective Solutions to a Dark and Troubled World".

The new course will be priced at $10,000.00 and will also require the purchase of all Miscavige's newly re-re-revised "Basics" books.

13,126 Scientologists (all remaining Scientologists in the world) will be forced off of whatever they were doing to purchase and take this new course.   Promoted as something that can be done "in a week", the course will actually take over six months.  Only 153 Scientologists will ever actually complete the course.

They will never be able to change a lightbulb again.

I was recently reminded of the fact that all Scientologists, as part of their indoctrination, receive a humorectomy.  Scientology carefully and thoroughly removes all possibility of a sense humor.

While "jokes" might be permitted if the target is a declared Enemy of Scientology, these must be approved by Miscavige and, if approved, are not funny.  Humor, laughter, sarcasm, parody -- these things are not allowed by Scientology dogma and are thoroughly removed through Scientology indoctrination.  Believe it or not, Hubbard actually wrote a Policy Letter forbidding jokes.

This is an effect of Scientology, not just the Church of Scientology.  Scientology, even outside the church, is Serious Business.  No one is laughing.  If you read any of the Independent Scientologists' websites and blogs, you will be overcome with how Serious It All Is.  A criticism isn't just a criticism, it is an attempt by Whole Track Evil to destroy all of Scientology forever.  A bit of a fuss is A Major Battle.  Without humor, every molehill becomes a mountain.

Even some ex-Scientologists do not recover a sense of humor.  They are battling Scientology and the Church of Scientology and they are very, very serious about it.

But then there is Anonymous.  Where Anonymous has been most wonderfully successful is with humor.  They laugh at the church, they laugh at Scientologists, they even laugh at themselves.  They are a lot more sane than any True Believer.

Humor brings perspective and sanity.  It may be Scientologists' lack of humor that is most responsible for Scientology's destruction.  They just don't get the joke.
-

Scientology's Logical Fallacies

You may recall, in Scientology Logic, that I thought that analyzing and listing all the logical fallacies that Scientologists use would be entertaining.  It has proven to be so.

As I discussed in that previous article, Scientology not only does not teach logic but it actively suppresses logical thinking.

What is even more interesting is how Scientology deliberately uses logical fallacies to justify its dogma and control Scientologists' thinking.

I've cribbed this list of logical fallacies from Wikipedia, which I find to be a wonderful source for many subjects, including Scientology.

Note that these aren't all the logical fallacies that Scientology uses, these are only a representative sample.

Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions

• Scientology example:

Argument: Anyone who opposes Good Works is Evil. Scientology does Good Works. Therefore, anyone who opposes Scientology is Evil.

Problem: While it may be true that some Scientologists do some Good Work, that is not necessarily true of Scientologists in general and definitely not true of the Church of Scientology.

The various programs that the church parades as examples of their "Good Works" have not held up under any independent inspection.  The claimed "good results" from these programs never materialized.

Scientologists who try to do good things via the Church of Scientology's programs such as "Volunteer Ministers" are effectively sabotaged by the church's greed and lack of support.

Converse Fallacy of Accident or Hasty Generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule

• Scientology example:

Argument: The other Scientologists I know are good people, so it must be true that all Scientologists are good people.

Problem: Most Scientologists have only met is a small subset of the entire group.

Specifically, most Scientologists have not worked in the Sea Org under David Miscavige, they have not experienced the pervasive criminal abuse in the Sea Org at his hands and at his orders.

In addition, most Scientologists have not had dealings with the various Scientologists who have been arrested for many crimes.  

Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion is true. "Beg" in this context means "dodge or avoid".

• Scientology example:

Argument: Scientology always works, I know this because, if it fails, it "wasn't Scientology".

Problem: The argument assumes that Scientology always works.

This is the classic and best-known Scientology logical fallacy.  Discuss Scientology's failures with any true believer, and their argument will inevitably beg the question.

Begging the question is also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle, assuming the answer.

Scientology true believers cannot think their way out of this logical fallacy -- it is deeply embedded in their belief system.

Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."

• Scientology example:

Argument: It's OK to go deeply into debt to pay for Scientology services, because Scientology will greatly increase your income.

Problem: There is no evidence that there is such an effect from Scientology.

Scientology registrars use this logical fallacy more than any other.

If one simply looks at the many, many Scientologists who have declared bankruptcy, who were forced to close their businesses and/or lost their homes through foreclosure, it is quite obvious that an increase in income does not happen as a matter of course for Scientologists.

Yet this sales pitch is still used.

Fallacy of False Cause - post hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.

• Scientology example:

Argument: After Sally completed Grade I, she got a new job, therefore Grade I resulted in a new job.

Problem: Since people get new jobs all the time, without any Scientology at all, such a direct correlation is unproven and highly unlikely.

Scientologists like this particular logical fallacy a lot.  Since they are not seeing the promised gains from their auditing, they attribute any good thing that happens to them to Scientology, no matter how far-fetched or disrelated.

Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

They must get training on this in Scientology.  When a Scientologist posts a comment on some blog or forum critical of Scientology, they often use the Straw man.

Anyone who has read the comment thread on my first article on Scientology Logic is well aware of how "Sylver" tried to do this.

• Scientology example:

Person A claims: While many Scientologists are good people who are trying to do good things, the Church of Scientology is run by criminals who must be brought to justice.

Argument Person B: You claim to like Scientologists, but you want to destroy their church.  You are a hypocrite!

Problem: Obviously, person A never said what person B claims.  Person B is creating a straw man so he can "win the argument".

There are more logical fallacies, and more that Scientologists either use or fall for (or both) but the logical fallacy that L. Ron Hubbard used most of all was this one:

Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium: a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

All of Dianetics and Scientology could be called Proof by verbosity. There is no real proof in all those millions of words, there is no research, there is no logic, there is nothing there -- but, boy, there sure is a lot of it.

Logical fallacies are embedded throughout the doctrine of Scientology.  If you remove the logical fallacies, you remove Scientology's foundation.
-

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.
-

The Scientology E-Meter

There is a lot of misinformation, speculation and strange claims about the Scientology E-Meter.  Since I try to clear up such confusing areas, it is high time I tackled this subject.

People (who have not actually studied or used the e-meter) very often claim the instrument is bogus; can't work; doesn't work.  It has been described by uninformed critics as "a crude lie-detector".

I recently had a conversation with someone who had heard it was only measuring skin resistance and reacted only to sweat and grip.  This is not accurate.

I have to tell you -- it works.

Before I get into a lot of caveats about that statement, about what it doesn't do, let me first establish what it does do.  The following is a description of a test, called the "pinch test", that anyone trained in the e-meter can do to anyone to show what the e-meter does.  I've done this myself on non-Scientologists, it is pretty convincing.

The "Pinch Test"

The person with the e-meter, let's call them the operator, sets the meter up and hands the other person the electrodes, the "cans".  The operator then has the person watch the needle while the operator pinches them, hard.

The person will see the needle immediately and quickly move to the right in response to the pain.

The operator then gives the command, "Recall the moment of the pinch."  When the person does so, they immediately see the same motion of the needle, usually a bit smaller.  The person can, again and again, recall the pinch and, the instant they do so, see that needle motion, a little less each time.

If you know someone who has a meter and has been trained, they can do this for you.

This is obvious proof that the meter really does react to the thought.

This is actually pretty amazing.

There is another test, a drill used during training, where the student puts another student on the meter and says, "Consider the events of today."  The other student does so.  When the first student sees a distinctive needle movement, he says, "That".  As prearranged, the second student immediately thinks of something else for a little, and then thinks the same thought he was thinking at the moment the first student said "That".   The first student is supposed to see that same needle movement and say, "That is the same thought."

Every graduate of an e-meter course has done this drill and passed it.

This shows that different thoughts can cause different and individually identifiable needle motions.

The unproven theory about all this is that some thoughts have "charge" attached to them, that this "charge" impinges on the body when the thought is "activated" by thinking it and this effect can be detected by measuring the change of resistance of the body.

There is no proof that this is true, but it's the only explanation at this time and it does seem to fit the current evidence.  It sure would be nice if someone competent did some scientific research on this.

So, that's what the meter can do.  Here's what it can't do.

It can't read or measure emotions.  It can't tell truth from lies.  It cannot tell what a person is thinking. It cannot make a person do anything.  It can be rather easily fooled.  And the meter is affected by many other factors than just thoughts.

The meter is affected by sweat, the grip on the cans, body motion and some other things.  This is a significant problem and requires much training on the part of the operator and much instruction of the person holding the cans (the "preclear").   Of course, sweat doesn't cause needle movements because it is slow to occur and very slow to evaporate, but sweat can affect the range, causing the meter to read too low.  Likewise, dry hands can make the meter read too high.

Preclears are carefully instructed on grip, and this is also why each meter comes with many different sizes of cans.

The meter operators are instructed and drilled on body motion, so they can, it is hoped, recognize and ignore needle motion caused by that.

The e-meter, as sold by the Church of Scientology, is a very expensive, but still somewhat primitive instrument.  It has never been analyzed in any scientific way.  It has many limitations.  The meter is quite easily fooled, if you know what you are doing.  The mind is a complex thing and the meter is a very simple thing, so problems can and do occur because the meter reads on something other than what is expected.

More research has been done in the Freezone concerning the e-meter and they claim they have improved it, but there is still no independent, scientific research on the e-meter.

How the E-Meter is part of the trap

It is the fact that the e-meter actually works that makes it a very integral part of the very effective trapping mechanism of the Church of Scientology. 

Very early on, every new Scientologist is led to believe that they cannot keep any secrets from the e-meter.   In session, when the auditor asks about their secrets, their bad actions, the meter reads.  And the auditor won't stop until the meter stops reading, meaning the Scientologist has "told all".

In this way, the Church of Scientology can and does get all the person's crimes, sexual problems, secrets and so on.  Every session starts with those questions.  The church's files are quite full and quite complete.

In addition, the existence and apparent effectiveness of the e-meter convinces the new Scientologist that the rest of the Scientology tech must be just as effective.

Of course, neither the e-meter nor the Scientology tech is as effective as claimed.  But that isn't obvious at the beginning.  By the time the Scientologist might detect the failings of both, they are usually too far into the indoctrination and can't perceive the flaws any more.
-

To Scientologists Newly Out of the Church

To you, dear Scientologist, who have finally decided to leave the Church of Scientology:

Congratulations!  You have made that important, first step to a new life.

Perhaps you haven't yet understood the magnitude of what you have done.

You have disagreed.

All Scientologists know that you may not disagree and remain in Scientology.  Oh, sure, you "can disagree", but only if you agree to get your disagreements "handled" by the church.  And that, we all learned, meant they would "handle" you until you realized "how wrong you were" and how right Scientology, the church and its leaders were.  There is no other "handling" -- you were wrong and Scientology, whatever they said and whatever they did, was right.

And, even though Ron said that agreement is effect and disagreement is cause,  Scientology only tolerates agreement.

And you have disagreed.  What's more, you refused to agree that you were wrong so you could be "handled" by the church.  You disagreed and you said, "I am right!"

This first disagreement after so much agree-agree-agree is a major step toward sanity.   If you are like I was, it is a great relief.

However, if you are like many Scientologists who have finally had enough and have stepped away from the Church of Scientology, you may still be wrapped up in the culture of agreement that is Scientology.

You might be tempted to return to that warm, welcoming culture of agreement with Scientologists outside of the church, like the "Independent Scientology" movement.  There, your disagreement about David Miscavige will become agreement, they all agree that "Miscavige is bad", and you could safely drop back with them into that safe world of complete agreement in Scientology.

You became a Scientologist because you found some of the things in Scientology to be worthwhile and workable.  But one of the characteristics of Scientology that is quite attractive to many Scientologists is that it is a pre-packaged set of beliefs where "all of that is bad" and "all of this is good",  you don't have to think, you don't have to worry, all you have to do is agree.  And once a person becomes a Scientologist, they are required to agree that everything in Scientology is good and workable -- no matter what their actual opinions or experiences are.

Hopefully, that's over for you.  Now you can make up your own mind about each and every thing in your life.  You can choose a life where you make the decisions about what you are going to think and believe.

You have taken the first step towards sanity and taking back your own life, don't stop now.  You can disagree if you want to.  You can disagree as much as you want, even with parts of Scientology.

And that is a road to greater truth.
-

Scientology Logic

In a recent comment, a Scientology True Believer was absolutely convinced that when I criticized L. Ron Hubbard, it was exactly the same as saying I wished for the total destruction of the belief system of Scientology.  No amount of logical discussion could alter that bizarre thought process.

Anyone following along in the discussion thread would have thought the Scientologist to be very, very stupid.  There was no way the actual words written could mean what he interpreted them to mean.

But to the Scientologist, it was completely logical.

Let us explore, once again, a bit more into the strange world of Scientology.

For those who have never talked to a Scientologist, Scientology logic looks, to an outsider, like this:

• If A
• And if B
• Then: Tuesday!

It just doesn't seem to make any sense.  For instance, let's take a very common example:

Does Scientology work?

• L. Ron Hubbard proclaimed that his technology would and does produce a "Clear", who would have perfect memory, be able to do lightening fast calculations, be free of most diseases and mental upsets.
• On inspection, in the entire history of Dianetics and Scientology, with tens of thousands of people applying Hubbard's technology, not one person has attained this mythical state of Clear.
• Therefore, Scientology works!

This is exactly what happens when you try to discuss Scientology's failures with a Scientologist.  Of course this makes it impossible to have any reasonable discussion.  But how can they be so, so ... illogical?

Logic is not taught in Scientology, obviously.  In fact, logic is frowned upon.  They have a drill, called the "Obnosis Drill" which drills a Scientologist to not draw logical conclusions. (Ironically, "obnosis" is a bafflegab word created by Hubbard to mean "observing the obvious").  For example, the course supervisor brings in a person for the students to do the drill on.  The drill would go like this:

Supervisor: What do you see?
Student: I see an old man.
Supervisor: Flunk! Do you see "old"?  Do you see "man"?  What do you see?
Student: I see a person with wrinkles and short grey hair.
Supervisor: Where do you see wrinkles and grey hair?
Student: I see a person with wrinkles on this side of its face and on the one hand I can see, and grey hair on this side of its head.

Do you see?  Students are drilled not to think, not to draw obvious conclusions, not to assume the self-evident fact that there is an old man there.  As ridiculous as you may think my example is, it is essentially a verbatim quote from a real course room drill I witnessed.

And that is just one of a number of Scientology techniques that turns off logic.

Another technique is the constant repetition and enforcement that you may never question anything Hubbard says.  What you see, if it contradicts what Hubbard said, is wrong.  You must work at it until you can work out that what you saw actually validated what Hubbard said.

The final trick is the installation of certain "truths" that may never be questioned.  Some of these are:

• L. Ron Hubbard is always right.
• Scientology always works.
• Evil forces are fighting Scientology.
• Anyone who disagrees with this is Evil.
• ... and so on.

And now you have Scientology Logic.  Let's look at that example, above, but let's peek behind the scenes to see what is going on inside the Scientologist's mind:

Does Scientology work?

• L. Ron Hubbard proclaimed that his technology would and does produce a "Clear", who would have perfect memory, be able to do lightening fast calculations, be free of most diseases and mental upsets.
• L. Ron Hubbard is always right.
• On inspection, in the entire history of Dianetics and Scientology, with tens of thousands of people applying Hubbard's technology, not one person has attained this mythical state of Clear.
• That statement must be a lie because it contradicts what Ron said, and Ron is always right. 
• There must be Clears somewhere, even if I've never seen any, because Hubbard said that Scientology does produce Clears.
• L. Ron Hubbard said Scientology always works.
• Therefore, Scientology works!
  

Now you can see it.  Now you can see why, to a Scientologist, that whole "logic" sequence makes sense.  They have these additional, hidden, "truths" that color every thought -- and they can't think about or question these "truths", they must only believe and accept them.

Now you can see why, when I dared to criticize Hubbard, I was (to the Scientologist) actually saying that all of Scientology should be destroyed.  That's Scientology Logic!

And, until a Scientologist recovers their ability to think logically, to perceive what is really there and think about and draw obvious conclusions from what they actually see, they will continue to make the most bizarre statements and erroneous "leaps of logic".

But now you know why you can't reason with a True Believer.  Their "logic" is pure Scientology Logic.
-

Scientology: Seeds of Its Own Destruction

With any in-depth and dispassionate analysis of Scientology, it becomes obvious that the organization and technologies of Scientology contain the seeds of their own destruction.

This is almost impossible for a True Believer to understand or detect, but it is clear to anyone who can see and think logically.

Now, I have written about some of this, such as Scientology's Admin Tech, which, while some is workable, if applied fully and exactly as written will effectively destroy any organization.  And there is a great essay on why Scientology's Ethics Tech is so destructive over on Leaving Scientology.

But now I'm talking about how the very structure of the Church of Scientology, as carefully designed by L. Ron Hubbard, made the takeover and subsequent destruction of the Church of Scientology not only possible but inevitable.

Let me explain. 

You see, Ron carefully structured the whole organization of the Church of Scientology around himself.  In all the thousands of policies that he wrote over all those years, there is one huge, glaring omission concerning the very top of the church:  The leader of Scientology and his duties, his responsibilities, how he is chosen, how he is removed, how he is evaluated, are all completely undefined.

Because of this, the leader may never be removed.  There simply is no way to remove the leader.  There is no way within the church to evaluate how the leader is doing.  There are no requirements that a leader must meet.  There are no results a leader must produce.  No one in the whole world has the power or authorization to remove the leader of Scientology.  This, of course, was intentional, since Ron had no intention of ever relinquishing control -- but it was a fatal omission for the church.

Some may believe that there are currently "others" who are really in charge and who could remove the leader, but that simply isn't true in the slightest.  The leader of the Church of Scientology has no boss and cannot be removed.    For more information about that, see Larry Brennan's blog.

The leader of Scientology is fully protected from everything.  Any internal threats or attacks are immediately dealt with, per policy, by the destruction and expulsion of the attacker.  The leader is always assumed fully innocent and any attacker is always presumed horribly guilty.  Any external attacks against the leader are, per policy, met with everything the Church of Scientology can throw against the attacker, both legal and illegal.  No expense or effort is spared in the leader's defense.

The leader's word is law within the Church of Scientology and must be complied with immediately and without question.  The leader can order anything be done and it will be done, no matter how much money or how many people are required.  If it is impossible, the church must still keep trying as long as the leader desires it.  The leader's power is absolute within the church.

The actions of the leader are completely protected by the church.  His whereabouts and actions are secret and carefully concealed by the church.  What the leader reveals is all that is visible, all else is hidden behind many curtains of secrecy created for that purpose.  If the leader commits crimes, lies, fraud and abuse, these actions will never be reported to the police (or anyone).  The leader of the Church of Scientology is protected from any exposure.

The leader of the Church of Scientology has absolute control over all of Scientology, all the money, all the property and all the people.  This is much more than just being very, very wealthy, this is total domination.

In case you are thinking this sounds like a super-desirable job, to an honest person, it really isn't.  Obviously it was perfect for Ron, because it was whatever he wanted it to be.  But now, because the job has no defined duties or limits, all the problems, disasters, failures and chaos of Scientology would end up at that desk.  The job is totally responsible for everything, but no clear limit to what the job actually is or is not.  For an honest person, it would be a horrible position, a complete disaster waiting to happen.

So, what kind of a person would want the job?  Not only would want it but would do anything and everything they could to gain that position?  What kind of a person would feed on chaos and disaster?

Yes, the person most likely to want that position would be a psychopath.  They would only see the unlimited power and wealth and care nothing about the responsibilities.  Who cares about responsibilities, problems and failures when you can just lie about everything?

And that is why David Miscavige took control of the Church of Scientology, the position is perfect for a psychopath.  He just had to have it, and he took it.

But the truth is, if Miscavige hadn't been there and hadn't taken over the leadership position, it is inevitable that some other psychopath would have done so.  Such a cruel and destructive person would be in danger of being found out and expelled unless they got to the safety of the top job of the church.  That is why it was inevitable that it would happen.

The seeds of the takeover of the Church of Scientology by the most destructive person is built right into the way the position of the leader was set up.  Once Ron was no longer able to defend his leadership, the church was truly doomed.
-

Conversation with a Scientologist

The following is pure fiction, and is not intended to insult anyone. It comes from my frustration with attempting to have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of the subject with some hard-line Scientologists.

Non-Scientologist: So, tell me about Scientology.

Scientologist: Well, it’s a religious philosophy which contains tools that anyone can use to improve their life. These are workable tools that have been proven to be uniformly successful if they are applied correctly.

Non-Scientologist: OK, but forgive me if I question your statement about being uniformly successful. I’ve seen some disturbing things online. Apparently the head of Scientology is physically and verbally abusive to his staff, people are forced to disconnect from their families, the Scientology organizations are emptying out, and there are a lot of defections, including top level OTs. That doesn’t seem to indicate uniform success.

Scientologist: Well, people in the Church are not correctly applying Scientology. They’ve altered the technology. What they are doing is not Scientology.

Non-Scientologist: I see. Well, if alteration of the technology is such a major problem, maybe Hubbard should have warned people about it. Maybe he should have written an issue alerting them to the dangers of altering the technology, and had every Scientologist read it at the beginning of every course.

Scientologist: Well, actually, he did that.

Non-Scientologist: Oh. Well, then, why didn’t that work?

Scientologist: Well, that’s because people have misunderstood. They can’t duplicate what they are reading.

Non-Scientologist: I see. That sounds like a serious block. Maybe Hubbard should have written something warning people about the importance of understanding words. Maybe he should have developed a technology of how to study.

Scientologist: Well, actually, he did. It’s called Study Tech.

Non-Scientologist: OK. Well, why didn’t that work?

Scientologist: It’s because people are out-ethics! They are just blinded by their own overts –transgressions – and they have withholds.

Non-Scientologist: Well, I can understand that could be a problem. Hubbard should have invented a technology of ethics to help people be more ethical and disciplined.

Scientologist: Well, actually, he did. There’s a whole book on it.

Non-Scientologist: OK, well, why don’t people apply that?

Scientologist: You don’t understand. Technology doesn’t get applied because the Orgs are a mess! They are off-purpose, more interested in income than really helping people. They are understaffed and desperate, and it’s hard to get anything standard done!

Non-Scientologist: Sure, I can see how that would be. Well, maybe Hubbard should have developed a technology of organization; how to keep organizations on-purpose and functioning properly. Maybe he should have written up all of their duties in detail so they know exactly what they should be doing.

Scientologist: Well, actually, he did do that. It’s been published in ten big volumes.

Non-Scientologist: Well, then, why doesn’t that get applied?

Scientologist: Staff don’t have time to study it. There’s too few of them and they are desperate. There are just not enough people in the orgs!

Non-Scientologist: Oh, I see. Well, then, maybe Hubbard should have developed a technology of how to promote and market Scientology. Maybe he should have provided drills telling people how to effectively disseminate Scientology.

Scientologist: Well, actually he did do that.

Non-Scientologist: Ok, why isn’t that correctly applied?

Scientologist: You don’t understand! The whole of the Church of Scientology has been taken over by Suppressive Persons. They are perverting the tech! They are destroying the Church! Everyone is PTS to them!

Non-Scientologist: Goodness, that sounds serious! Well, maybe Hubbard should have developed a technology to show people how to spot Suppressive Persons, and how to handle them once you’ve spotted them, so you don’t go PTS.

Scientologist: Well, actually, he did that too.

Non-Scientologist: Oh! Well, then, why doesn’t that get applied?

Scientologist: There are so many other factors I haven’t even mentioned! People have something called GPMs, they have whole track implants, they have evil purposes in restimulation, they have…

Non-Scientologist: Well, why didn’t Hubbard develop technologies to…

Scientologist: He did! He did! But you don’t understand! You can’t get technology correctly applied when you have people who are not rational, who are not sane, who are low on the Tone Scale, who are aberrated…

Non-Scientologist: Well, maybe Hubbard should have developed a technology to make people rational and sane, to raise them on the Tone Scale, to get rid of aberration.

Oh wait. Isn’t that what Scientology is supposed to do?

- Arthur