Offbeat

Rant

Scientology: Desperate Times

Posted 37 months ago|77 comments|1,571 views
Written by
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
In the past, Scientology promotion could be found on Usenet groups and press releases. Now, sites like this have been added to their arsenal, as teams of "citizen journalist" Scientologists have begun adding promotional articles to the mix.

The most informative thing about these articles is the commentary exchange following a provocative topic. On this site, you can read about how Scientology might enhance your sex life, or how children wish to grow up "just like L. Ron Hubbard," the founder of Scientology. Then too, there's the article inexplicably entitled "It is Hopeless to Not Be a Scientologist," which suggests they are about to take over the world, so you'd better get on board.

Amusingly, there is also a rant claiming that Scientology critics are all criminals or ex-members who simply weren't ethical enough for the organization.

These pieces are all by the same writer, who is doing his best to get people to look at Scientology-produced sites which, surprise surprise, promote Scientology!

Unfortunately for the writer, he has become a straight man for a large number of well-informed Scientology critics; people who have done a lot of research and are able to refute the lies, misleading statements, and slippery Scientology "logic" that is
typical of Scientology PR flacks.

Why the desperate attempt to promote and defend Scientology? In January of 2008, the number of critics exploded as people on
the Internet decided they'd had enough of this cult trying to censor information online. Since then, thousands of internal Scientology documents were made public. Ex-members, emboldened by the sheer number of critics, began to speak out. Some have launched lawsuits against cult abuses; human trafficking, forced abortion and abuse are being exposed. The stories from these people have a thematic coherence of shared experience.

Scientology representatives attack the messenger, deny the allegations, and squall about "religious bigotry" and persecution. At the same time, it is clear that new membership has plummeted, but those still "in" insist that Scientology is expanding; in part because local chapters are being pressed to buy large buildings which are then signed over to the Mother Ship at the top of the corporate ladder. These buildings are "proof" that the organization is growing; the fact that many of these properties are unused and not maintained escapes them.

It's been a hard time for Scientology. Since 2008 began, there have been high level defections, lawsuits launched against them for fraud, practicing medicine without a license, and other charges in France and Belgium. Germany continues to monitor them, viewing the group as a threat to their constitution.

Scientology front groups have been exposed and mocked. Their "drug rehab" program, Narconon, has seen the collapse of several of their flagship facilities. Second Chance, a knockoff of Narconon, was expelled from Albuquerque due to a comedy of errors culminating with the disappearance of kitchen appliances that vanished when the front group sneaked out in the middle of the night.

And every time a Scientologist tries to promote the unscientific, bogus teachings from a drug using, college dropout pulp fiction hack, someone is there to point out the flaws in their arguments. Scientologists become straight men to educated, well informed individuals whom they inevitably label criminals. What follows is a superb demonstration of the Scientologists' severe lack of critical thinking skills, dodgy logic, and a willingness to outright lie in order to make a point. Unfortunately, these lies are easily refuted by people who understand the difference between anecdotal testimonials and documented proof.

Every argument they offer in defense consists of ad hominem attacks on their critics, links to Scientology websites, and unsubstantiated statements of "fact" that are easily disproven.

Readers might be curious as to why the sudden spate of essays promoting this destructive organization. It is because they are desperate; their public outreach is being slowly shut down, one front group after another. Their attempts to position themselves as human rights activists are being challenged by their own history of abuses.

Simply put, a better informed populace is no longer ignorant of Scientology's fifty year history of espionage, abuse and lies. And they simply cannot back up their arguments in the face of solid evidence as high profile issues such as the death of Jett Travolta focus attention on their dangerous, destructive beliefs. The organization's attempt to censor information is failing. It's hard to claim to champion free speech when clearly, the only free speech they support is their own.

This is not a religious issue, although Hubbard stated more than once that Scientology is not a religion. People are speaking out against the abuses, the intolerance, the fraud, intimidation and lies the organization wields as weapons to terrorize and silence their critics.

It's not working any more. Too many eyes are watching. As more citizens become aware of the true nature of Scientology, the impact on politicians will be evident. A relationship with Scientology will be seen as political suicide on a par with a relationship with the KKK or the American Nazi Party.

The sun is setting on the Scientology empire. Buckle up, and enjoy the ride. Popcorn is encouraged.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: I liked the final comment, obviously a stab at the last rave about the-topic-i-shall-not-name.

Very articulate, i didn't know we had an American Nazi Party.

Cheers!
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
Philadelphia, PA
37 months ago: Also, i love how now this site is bombarded by ads for dianetics and scientology.

cracks me up. Last i checked The pope doesn't get on the 6'o clock news to hit you with his propaganda.
MeowMacao
MeowMacao
Andorra
37 months ago: Attention Scientology: DOWNSTAT! and guess what else? "Upstat" is now officially over. From now on, your cult is downstat and in its downward death-spiral. You can hang your hat on that "stable datum." That is all.
37 months ago: Oh sure, it is all a plot. The U.S. Government, the internet and even your local library are all parts who work for Scientology. Oh sure, there's an easy logic to follow. LOL.

Critics of Scientology have rubber their heads together on the internet for some while. But possibly until Wikipedia became popular, neither the Church, nor individual members made much effort to use the internet's broad informative powers. Perhaps the meeting of the critic and the parishioner first happened on wikipedia, but wherever it happened, its form follows its function. Critics disparage, discourage, belittle and tout one-liners from snippets of Hubbard's extensive writings. Nearly ever critic's posting contains an antagonism such as "downstat", "propaganda", or reference to the Nazi party. Often it appears that critics are simply unable to formulate coherent criticism. Personal attacks and worse appear as public comment and message boards can be found that discuss and seek ways to belittle, particular parishioners. However, there is a simplicity to it all. Freedom of thought includes freedom of religion. And freedom of religion is held in high esteem in today's interactive world.
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
37 months ago: Terryeo, what plot would that be?
Do you see *anything* mentioned about a plot? No? Of course not. I am merely, factually (you guys love that word, amirite?) explaining why the hell your cult is suddenly flooding the web with absurdities such as Jack's delightful, yet inaccurate observation that all the kiddies want to grow up to be JUST LIKE L. Ron Hubbard.

I can state with certainty that I have never "rubber my head together" on the internet, but I have used a proxy condom when visiting Scientology websites. Is that what you meant?

The irony of someone who wrote "rubber their heads together" calling me incoherent isn't lost. Moreover, the elrony of a Scientologist accusing critical writers of launching personal attacks is delicious, as ad hominem assaults on character and appearance is truly the Scientologist's tactic and domain. To do otherwise would require you to actually address the issues, which you cannot do because you aren't allowed to actually read about the issues we bring up. So, you poor things are condemned to wallow in the sandbox of grade-school debating skills, focusing on the superficial. That leaves you somewhat unarmed, but I appreciate that you do the very best that you can with the meager tools bestowed upon you by L. Ron Hubbard. And when all else fails, you can always resort to threatening yourself. At least that reinforces the siege mentality necessary to establish solidarity, no matter how spurious, in the minds of the indoctrinated true believers you have left.
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
37 months ago:

It is amusing that you'd bring up what Hubbard called "the religious angle" in your comment, particularly since I intentionally included this sentence.

"This is not a religious issue, although Hubbard stated more than once that Scientology is not a religion. People are speaking out against the abuses, the intolerance, the fraud, intimidation and lies the organization wields as weapons to terrorize and silence their critics. "

This was a bit of a test. It's pretty clear you didn't even read the piece, that all you did was throw together a bunch of vague, unspecific claptrap in hopes that at least one of your offerings would be relevant.

Unfortunately for you, you batted zero on this one. And you'll probably fail next time as well, as what you're doing is tantamount to firing arrows at a target blindfolded.

It's clear you didn't read the piece. It's funny that you hoped your vague response might score. We're not as predictable as all that, Terryeo. It's a pity that you Scientologists are.

"Freedom of religion." Oh, Terryeo, you're not scary-o! At this point, you're just sad, frightened, lowlevel true believers who can't handle the truth enough to even confront it!

Thank you for playing, and demonstrating how indoctrinated Scientologists operate. You lost the game.

37 months ago: Okay, after a month of spending time making furniture in a dark basement with dozens of others for 12 hours a day as part of Scientology's RPF treatment. I think my anger against the Anonymous KKK cult hate group is well-managed now.

I'm not sure what Xenubarb is talking about? Maybe she took too many psychiatrist pills or something, maybe brainwashed by the German Government. but we're still growing as ever with millions of members and at least ten thousand Scientology orgs world-wide.

The last time we had a downstat was when the highups got convicted by the U.S. Government for infiltrating the IRS and we had to dissolve a few members as well as the Old Guard. It doesn't matter though because the OSA is still the same exact thing, just a new name. I'm glad L. Ron Hubbard was able to escape from the facist FBI though during that time.

So please stop listening to this drivel and listen to me, a twenty-year scientologist that still has yet to reach OTVIII but another's year paycheck to Scientology should be worth it.
37 months ago: Ah. I forgot to add, while back in the 90s when the internet was still young, we were able to control the internet. Any website or group that spoke out against us, we'd hack into and take down, an early form of ..what's that word? Ddosing?. All for the sake of defending out religion, because we had a right to do so according to L. Ron Hubbard.

Though.. since the internet is growing, it's becoming harder for us to control and start these attacks..

If only the internet was that simple again.. still, we're not in desperate times and never will be. I havn't read anything on this page so far, so I'm just assuming this all has to do with scientology's tactics against critics in desperate times.
37 months ago: Well written article, Xenubarb! I find it hard to believe the scientologists even try to defend themselves with such vague responses. How can anyone defend their "religion" without supporting facts? They will never reign. They will only fail so superbly that we'll be left to pick up the pieces. Oh, how I dread that day!!
37 months ago: Scientologists make me lol. I don't think the followers realize how full of crap the church is.
37 months ago: Amazing. There are several elements of Hubbard's writings that people who study, find very helpful. Regarding celebrities there are two very useful areas. One is communication. Another is the emotional tone scale. These information are actually helpful. But unless you understand you might not know all there is to know about human nature, communication, emotion, there is nothing for you to learn. Have a nice day.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: I think it's sad that people like terryeo are so deluded they still support the cult. They cannot understand that the all important mission they are on to "clear the planet" is simply a means to keep them sacrificing their time, effort and money to the cult providing the cult with cheap labour and extra cash to benefit David Miscavige and those in his favour; David swans around the world with his entourage living a life of leisure. In return it gives them a sense of purpose in life but that's all. It's a purpose that has them spending their lives working for the cult for no tangible benefit to themselves, they often die poor and unfulfilled having toiled all their life for the cult.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Terryeo "there are several elements of Hubbard's writings that people who study, find very helpful". There are much cheaper study materials on communication that people find just as helpful. You kind find countless books on the subject in bookshops, libraries and on the Internet.

In the UK there are courses provided for free that help people cope with stress, anger, depression and other everyday problems on the NHS.

Hundreds of people find these courses beneficial to them and at no cost yet the scientologists believe their courses are the only ones that work and they come at a price. The cult even justifies this with their teachings regarding exchange.

The cult draws people in with apparently useful courses that lead on to more courses and then selling cult paraphernalia and recruiting for the cult. Public members spend huge sums pursuing the dream the cult puts before them. Those who end up on staff spend huge amounts of their time pursing the cults' goal of clearing the planet, which is essentially recruiting more people for the cult.
thetagal
thetagal
Elma, WA
37 months ago: I do wish people would distinguish between Scientology and the Church of Scientology. If it were Catholism and the Catholic Church one wouldn't throw out the subject of Catholism if the Church Management was guilty of the same wrong-doings as attributed to the Church of Scientology.

There are people outside of the Church in the "Freezone" who practice Scientology. There is no cheap labour, no demanding that people disconnect from family members, it is the belief system being applied to better individuals, groups and hopefully the world.

It doesn't take 1/2 a million dollars to do the betterment steps (bridge or way to truth) either. So, as is taught in Christianity, please separate the wheat from the chaff.

The article rants against those things that are wrong--that is understandable. Former Scientologists have also raved against the wrong doings, yet many still practice Scientology without those wrong doings and without connection to the Church.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: thetagal "I do wish people would distinguish between scientology and the church of scientology"

Very good point. Scientology = the beliefs but Church of scientology =/= a church, it's a cult organisation.
Robyn13
Robyn13
Beverly Hills, CA
37 months ago: Excellent piece. $cientology has also flooded "PR Inside" with this same type of self-promotion posing as "news".
The reason is clear: They are absolutely incapable of getting positive press from an objective source-EVER. No one has anything good to say about this nefarious cult - except the cult itself. And no one is falling for it anymore. You had your 60 year reign of terror $cientology, but it's over.

And good riddance.
bob dobbs
bob dobbs
Geneseo, NY
37 months ago: "Personal attacks and worse appear as public comment and message boards can be found that discuss and seek ways to belittle, particular parishioners"

Terryeo, I've seen Roger Gonnet make a comment on a Shortnews Scientology-related article, and then you came along and said,"Hey
Roger, isn't this you on ReligiousFreedonWatch.org?" You did'nt address his comment at all, you just pointed out that website, is that not some kind of attack?
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
37 months ago: I hope your right. The leaders may have transferred the money to their Swiss bank accounts and planned their exits. I look forward to the day it is just a memory...
37 months ago: Same old bla, bla, bla.

Scientology is here to stay ... so buy a LOT of popcorns. :-)

37 months ago: I give it a year, and thats being nice. Compared to this time last year, critics have achieved a hell of a lot, and the campaign to dismantle Scientology in its present form has come on leaps and bounds. A year.
Chef Xenu
Chef Xenu
Columbus, OH
37 months ago: Great post Barb!

thetagal: "I do wish people would distinguish between Scientology and the Church of Scientology."

I do this. In my posts I have made an effort over the past several months to use "Corporation of Scientology" when talking about Miscavige's/RTC's/Sea Org's down lines and their abuses, and "Scientology" or "Scientologist(s)" when talking about the Religion itself, or individual Scientologists.

I think this is a good habit to cultivate. My criticism is entirely of the abuses of the Organization, and not of individuals in it or using the tech outside it, except in-so-far as they are complicit in the abuses (disconnection, bait-and-switch, fair game, etc.).


Chef Xenu
Chef Xenu
Columbus, OH
37 months ago: Also, our local org is egregiously "downstat." I have been leaked a telex showing they were recently in the lower condition of "Emergency."

I have not seen any national or international stats, so I don't know how the Corporation of Scientology is doing on the large scale, but I suspect most North American and European Orgs are having similar experiences to the one in my city.
Robyn13
Robyn13
Beverly Hills, CA
37 months ago: 2008 was the single worst year for $cientology, and unbelievably 2009 is shaping up to be even worse. KESQ is continuing their investigations, numerous lawsuits, people leaving in droves, tiny Davey Miscavige soaking the last few thousand for more and more cash to grow his real estate portfolio, Xenu confirmed by Tommy Davis, people coming forward to tell of abuse in the cult's prison camps, $cientology brutality caught on tape, etc etc etc.

The dismantling is a beautiful thing to watch.

37 months ago: Oh hum. A bit of "other" news in an environment of purchased buildings, completed buildings and other signs of affluence. Oh hum.
37 months ago: When are the next KESQ installments up? Those are usually on Wednesdays and Thursdays, right?
37 months ago: "Oh hum. A bit of "other" news in an environment of purchased buildings, completed buildings and other signs of affluence. Oh hum."

This is why people liked Jesus. He preached a message that being poor is good and rich is bad. He said that one cannot be happy through material means. Looks like the Church is trying to buy its happiness right now.
Chef Xenu
Chef Xenu
Columbus, OH
37 months ago: "Oh hum. A bit of "other" news in an environment of purchased buildings, completed buildings and other signs of affluence. Oh hum."

Seems a bit like "Field of Dreams" to me. They do not have the demand for services that would warrant buying/building and renovating all these properties, and yet they are doing so anyway in a desperate attempt to somehow magically become affluent by donning the outward apparel of affluence.
Robyn13
Robyn13
Beverly Hills, CA
37 months ago: "Purchased" with funds Miscavige has managed to squeeze from the last few thousand die hards you have left. If it weren't for a few nutty "celebrities" who need the constant ****-kissing they get from $cientology you wouldn't be buying a mud hut.

Try filling those buildings, or better yet, try finishing your SUPER POWERS!! building. What is it now-9 years past due?

On a side note, what country lacking an extradition treaty with the U.S. do you suppose a certain tiny leader will flee when it all comes crashing down?
37 months ago: A simple question.

If "LRH Tech", ie Scientology, is so perfect and flawless, how come there's a percentage of society that simply cannot be "cured" by auditing, and according to policy should be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow"?

Something "flawless" works every time - like 2+2=4. LRH Tech is therefore demonstratably "with flaw" - and the whole organisation is based on the premise that Hubbard was right on everything. What if he wasn't?
37 months ago: Marc, you raise a point that Hubbard addressed when he said: "Scientology is a workable system". Meaning, Scientology is not a perfect and flawless system. It is possible to go astray, it is possible to misunderstand. Also, it is possible that a staff member might make a mistake and mis-apply tech. We are, after all, all human. And to some extent, are all prone to mistakes. But this requires personal effort. And the organization continues Hubbard's direction, today. That direction? Toward results. Anything you find in a Church (my opinion) was created by Hubbard or by more modern management, toward personal betterment. If it doesn't produce betterment (for most people, most of the time), then something else is done. For example, today we have certain drills which are done as part of the courses and taught in Churches. Hubbard didn't include this step, but implementing this step produces better results. That is, students more successful learn and apply the material. Perfect, no. Workable, yes.
37 months ago: Ya what terryeo said. If scientology doesn't work for you, it isn't scientology's fault, it's your fault.
37 months ago: "Also, it is possible that a staff member might make a mistake and mis-apply tech...But this requires personal effort." - Terryeo

Lol, scientology is so good that you have to TRY to make it not work.
37 months ago: "Toward results. Anything you find in a Church (my opinion) was created by Hubbard or by more modern management, toward personal betterment." - Terryeo.

Thats right. Because giving your church workers 100 hour work weeks with little pay builds character. Also the disconnection policy also gives great results too, becuase the best way to shut someone up is to have everyone not listen to them. You don't want mothers distracting daughters with their love and concern when they still have 77 hours left in their work week to do hard manual labor.
37 months ago: "For example, today we have certain drills which are done as part of the courses and taught in Churches. Hubbard didn't include this step, but implementing this step produces better results." - Terryeo.

Wow drills, that sure does help. It is like practicing. Wow practicing is such a cool, useful idea, I wonder why no one has ever thought of using that before. If only humanity had realized that practicing would make them better at stuff, like reading, writing, work, sports, cooking, driving, knot-tying, etc. Hot Dam, you guys really have it going on with this whole 'drilling' concept.
37 months ago: A few months ago an ice shelf attached to antarctica fell into the ocean and floated away in pieces. It was 7000 years old. Today, ice 10,000 years old has fallen into the ocean and is floating away in pieces. Tomorrow, what do you expect?

What is it with you dedicated critics that read a statement and don't reply to the content of the statement, but reply to the emotional overtone of the statement? Can't you see that people are talking about information here?
37 months ago: You gave me information, and i replied to it. If i was emotional i would have used emoticons >:^{(
37 months ago: "A few months ago an ice shelf attached to antarctica fell into the ocean and floated away in pieces. It was 7000 years old. Today, ice 10,000 years old has fallen into the ocean and is floating away in pieces. Tomorrow, what do you expect?"

I expect more of the ice shelf to break away due to global warming btw. Just in case you were wondering.
37 months ago: @Terryeo
"Also, it is possible that a staff member might make a mistake and mis-apply tech." And what happens if managment applies the tech wrong. What if Miscavige is applying the tech wrong? Who's going to call him out on that? What if the tech has been applied wrong so many times since Hubbard died that bad tech is now part of the system? What is the entire system within the Cult of Scientology is predicated upon inaccurate tech that is being inappropriately applied? Go on, ask your auditor that and see if you end up in the RPF.

No one in the Corporation of $cientology is allowed to question the tech, at all. Anyone who tries to is punished.
37 months ago: There's an old scam that works much the same:
You start by calling 100 random people, offering them an 'insider tip' about a football game. The first one is free, and you tell half of them to bet on one team, the other half to bet on their opponent. After the game ends, you call the 50 who won on your advice (or, even if they didn't put money on it, see that you predicted it 'correctly'). You then offer to sell them a tip for a game this week. You tell 25 of them to bet one way, and the other 25 to bet the other way. Keep repeating this and increasing the amount you charge. By the time you're down to two people, both of those people have had 'wins' every time you gave them a tip. Now you can demand a very large sum for your advice - and they'll likely pay it, thinking they'll recoup the cost with the large bet they'll place. One wins, one loses, and you once again get the winner to pay you an enormous sum for some data you pull out of your ****.

That`s how Scientology works.
37 months ago: "In the past, Scientology promotion could be found on Usenet groups."

False datum. Critics have rubbed their hard little heads together for years on usenet groups to produce a little self-generated warmth for their minds. On rare occasion a scientologist has commented or intervened in some way. This continues today, as the internet becomes more available to more people.

Scientology has posted some press releases. This effort has become more common as the internet grows. Finally we come to the internet's more recent sites, such as RantRave.com where we find a common meeting ground. Both critics (ha) and a small handful of scientologists who wish to, can compare opinions. Have a nice day.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Terryeo, regarding scientology being a workable system. Would you say scientology is the ONLY workable system? Would you go as far as the declarations of Tom Cruise, as well as many other scientologists, in stating that scientologists are the ONLY ones who can really help? Do you see the global obliteration of psychiatry as helping?
thetagal
thetagal
Elma, WA
37 months ago: Hi. Tom Cruise seemed to get his foot in his mouth. I can appreciate his zeal for Scientology, but to say only Scientologists can really help is a very incorrect statement, and invalidative to all the good folks that are trying to do something about conditions on this planet.

No man changes the planet conditions alone. Scientology doesn't have enough members to do it by themselves.

Tom apparently forgets that the true goals of Scientology is a world without criminals, insanity, and war. That takes a lot of people doing a lot of right things.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Terryeo again, "Oh hum. A bit of "other" news in an environment of purchased buildings, completed buildings and other signs of affluence. Oh hum." - yes I've seen David "Poodle" - tiny fists of ineffective fury - Miscavige's LRH birthday presentation. Plenty of claims regarding purchased buildings.

Yes, the organisation is affluent it makes its money from members. In a number of cases the property is bought by a front company for the organisation who then sells it to another front company for the organisation. Money is then collected from members to fund the purchase.

Once purchased the building is then renovated by cheap labour scientologists and paid for by scientologists.

The actual sq ft of buildings purchased world wide(around the same sq ft as 2 city blocks BTW) far exceeds actual needs, hence many empty and incomplete buildings. Why? Because the main profit was made by the organisation in the first purchase / sale transaction and on subsequent rents to orgs. The buildings don't need to be used.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Hello thetagirl, I would agree that to say only scientology can help is a very incorrect statement.

I can understand the zeal of Tom Cruise. The interview was recorded by the organisation for its members and so Tom was being absolutely candid, expressing views that are encouraged by the organisation.

Tom Cruise's statements in that interview only echo the teachings of LRH who was emphatic that Scientology was right and everything else (especially psychiatry and other religions) was wrong. Such is the insular nature of the church of scientology - never question the tech, it is right. Don't follow other views they are wrong. The competition to dianetics (psychaitry) is the evil enemy to be destroyed, not engaged for mutual understanding and betterment.

Chef Xenu
Chef Xenu
Columbus, OH
37 months ago: Also, the competition to Scientology (other religions) are an evil enemy, and in OT-VII and OT-VIII "Tech" users are reprogrammed to believe these "other practices" are alien implants which are keeping us from achieving "total freedom."
37 months ago: Let me see if I follow your reasoning, Xenu. The word you read in a book published by the Church of Scientology is "programming". Whereas, the word you read from critical websites is freedom. Is that your reasoning?
37 months ago: Deanfox (England) I find I'm not able to reply to you because I don't really understand whether you actually seek my opinion about something, or not. On one hand you attack, on the other hand you bait and degrade people. I'm not sure I can give you a reply because I'm not sure you asked a question.

I would say, what "help" does Tom Cruise talk about? He surely doesn't say, "we can help you paint your house and improve your beaked nose". He talks about help in a specific, stated area. Scientology is about help, but in what area? Well, I'll tell you but you probably know already. In the area of the human spirit, Scientology offers help. Now, if you don't believe there is any "human spirit", then you have little to criticize, do you follow?
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Terryeo, among other things Tom Cruise specifically talks about a road accident. "As a scientologist when you see a road accident you know you cannot pass it by because you know you're the only one who can really help".

In this interview he is encouraged to open up his feelings by the fact it is by scientologists for scientologists.

Overall he is very passionate about his belief that scientology has the only answers in many areas such as human spirit, health, well being. He is representative of the ideal feelings a scientologists should have and many do.

Included in LRH lectures I've listened to are many opinions LRH had on health, education, social and economic issues and Tom Cruise clearly echoed many of these; a much wider remit that "human spirit", which incidentally I do believe in. According to the church of scientology LRH was an expert in all these areas too and the organisation also provides LRH's teachings (tech) in all these areas including specifics on how to educate or run a business.

The point though is the level of zeal Tom Cruise exhibits is typical of people who believe so strongly they have lost critical thought; they will accept any dogma presented to them by the "one true source" and summarily reject anything contrary, including evidence that would stand up in court. Such people will donate their life to "the cause" and fighting "the enemy". Such people will do anything for "the cause" and the cause is always extremist (global obliteration). Most victims of the organisation are the scientologists themselves who donate their lives to keeping David Miscavige in the life to which he has become accustomed.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Terryeo, regarding your other comment to xenu. "The word you read in a book published by the Church of Scientology is "programming". Whereas, the word you read from critical websites is freedom. Is that your reasoning?"

I don't know about xenu but their is no "word" only opinions and facts. Determining which is which and which opinion is more valid requires critical analysis. One of the main rules of critical analysis is don't assume the source is correct.

It's therefore wrong to assume any sites' information is accurate and complete, other criteria have to be used to validate the information.

Scientologists I've spoken to believe that if LRH said it it must be true. They have lost curiosity. They no longer ask "why" something works.

Is this a problem, it works so that's all you need to know is the common answer.

One main aspect of humans that makes us more successful than apes is asking "why?", Apes are capable of problem solving but they've never progressed beyond bashing the rocks together and poking things with simple tools made from sticks, one of the reasons is because they never think of "why" something works which leads on to "what if I try something else based on my understanding of why that works".

OK so religions should stay the same (they don't) but the church of scientology doctrines cover many aspects beyond the purvey of human spirit often in very specific detail and none of that has evolved. It can't because according to Tommy Davis and back up by known LRH policies questioning the tech is forbidden.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: BTW Terryeo, my comments are to inform and stand to critical analysis. Questions are not specifically asked, you should be asking and often answering them yourself. The fact you're unsure how to answer my comments suggests to me you're critical analysis skills are impaired. I've made some bold statement in previous comments, so ask yourself, why am I wrong (or right) and what evidence is their to back up your conclusion. Then we can have a debate.
37 months ago: What you've done, Fox, is evaluate, judge and criticze. You said: "I think it's sad that people like terryeo are so deluded they still support the cult". And now, after your criticism you offer to debate, but not right away. You'll only debate with me after I perform certain actions that you specify and THEN "we can have a debate".

Oh hum. Let's turn that around 180 degrees and see how you feel about discussion. I think it is sad that people like DeanFox are so deluded they still don't understand what they criticize". They hold to the values of their cult, calling themselves Anonymous.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Hi Terryeo. I still feel fine about discussion so to sum up some points to discuss:

1. The church of scientology is an organisation governed by the policies, doctrines and teachings* of L Ron Hubbard. Agreed? (*Which I will refer to collectively as "the tech" though I appreciate this term has a slightly different meaning for you)

2. Repeatedly in the tech LRH used the term "squirrelling" meaning to introduce falsehoods in to the tech and was adamant this was a high crime. Agreed?

3. LRH was the only person who could do the research necessary to produce the tech. No one else was or is qualified to carry it on. Indeed LRH is carrying on his research in to OT8+ in his current exteriorised state. Agreed?

4. Recently, while LRH is still exteriorised, the basic books were revised introducing material that David Miscavige said was missed out by the publishers? Agreed?

Did you know LRH personally checked his materials pre publication and also ensured he received copies prior to distribution and should, no would, have noticed missing materials? Indeed had their been any then someone would be in very serious trouble. OK, you can answer no to this and even refute it as I cannot prove the veracity of this statement.

LRH though was very meticulous by nature and always saw to it that any task he required doing was done exactly to his requirements. He was often exasperated by people who simply couldn't grasp what he saw as very simple requirements. I remember him expressing his annoyance that people couldn't even do touch and nerve assists properly. Those I have seen doing it today don't even get it right as per correct LRH tech and I see the book they use is wrong too according to LRH tech. Not that I particularly agree with LRH tech or what it does but I am impressed by what the man achieved.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Another point to discuss.

There are just over 800 public libraries in Australia. Each one is meant to have a full set of 18 LRH basic books. This means there should be around 15,000 titles in the national library database for Australia. Having checked the national library database for Australia there are only around 200 basic books available. However members of the church of scientology in Australia have collected around $130m specifically to get the basic tech in to public libraries there, so the books should be there. On checking I have determined many were returned, a few are "in storage" - not hitting the shelves soon I might add, some were given away and some were pulped.

I did this checking late last year as part of validating Paul Scholfields' official "doubt" announcement. Figures may have changed since then, you're welcome to check and get back to me.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Point to above comment: the reality DM conveys in his cleverly worded speeches does not necessarily agree with the data available so causing an ARC break. The question is, is it wrong to look at the available data when it may result in an ARC break with DM's reality?

OK, so I did not go out and visit each library in turn to check but I also don't trust the database totally. I did however do some calling around to 40 libraries chosen to be representative of the size and spread of Aussie libraries to enquire. Those who had the books in as reported by the system had them, although 8 books couldn't be located. Those that shouldn't have them didn't although 13 of those libraries recalled receiving them. 3 reported pulping them as "unsolicited". 6 reported returning them as "unsolicited". 2 didn't know what happened to them but thought they might be in storage still and 2 thought they'd given them away.
37 months ago: That's interesting. Have a nice day.
37 months ago: DeanFox - I don't agree that your understanding of the phrase, "the tech" is different than my understanding of the term. Good luck with yours. I don't agree with #3, I don't agree with #4.

The publications, as they were before the Church obtained the original copies created by the hand of Hubbard, were not simply missing portions. In fact, to my recall and as explained by the Church's CD, very little was missing. But portions were mispresented. In some of the 18 basic books, portions meant to be in a chapter, under the chapter's heading was placed in a following chapter. In some cases, portions of text were not put into the sequence of text.

While on one hand you attempt to garner my agreement, on the other hand you attempt to make small of the Church's effort. There is something there, DeanFox. It is a lot of information, but begin with some piece of it that makes sense to you, that personally makes sense. And clear every word you don't completely understand. When you understand it, then criticize or not, that's up to you.

DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Terryeo, it was not my understanding of the word "tech" it was my definition, for none scientologists, which I was acknowledging to you, as a scientologist, as being different to the definition to which you subscribe.

I accept your correction of my wording regarding the rewrite of the books, to be precise having checked again with DM's statements on the subject I find the reasons for the rewrites were stated as:
1. poor page layout,
2. incorrect punctuation,
3. incorrect sequence of chapters,
4. insertion of chapters as sub-headings under the heading of a previous chapter,
5. missing chapters,
6. addition of publisher written materials under the name of LRH,
7. failures of publishers and/or transcriptionists to duplicate LRH’s dictation and/or
handwritten corrections.

I can assure you however that the original books published between 1948 and 1956 were checked by LRH himself. He was quite meticulous with this. Some of the changes could be explain as evolutions in style since the original write up but there wasn't anything missing from the originals.

Be assured I understand LRH tech and understand why he believed what he did. You cunningly avoided asking me about touch assists and nerve assists.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Oh there was also nothing added in the original books either (accidentally or otherwise), LRH was definitely very meticulous about that.
37 months ago: DeanFox said: I think it's sad that people like terryeo are so deluded they still support the cult. The cult draws people in with apparently useful courses that lead on to more courses and then selling cult paraphernalia and recruiting for the cult. Public members spend huge sums pursuing the dream the cult puts before them. Oh hum." - yes I've seen David "Poodle" - tiny fists of ineffective fury - Miscavige's LRH birthday presentation.

How can I help but think you discourage people from Scientology, DeanFox. Wasn't it cunning of me to not ask you about assists? Cunning, underhanded and just plain sneaky. But if you'll read though, I don't believe I have asked you for any Tech. Nor would I. Your postings present a lack of knowledge about the Church's management (much more has been purchased than 2 sq ft, for example the South African Castle). Your posting present a criticism, a casual criticism without clear foundation of many elements of Hubbard's life, his technology, the Church he founded and its practice today. No DeanFox, I don't think it would be appropriate to ask you about tech. You've spoken loudly of your position on these things.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Terryeo, Scientology I have no beef with as a belief system or religion if you will. The church of scientology however is a different matter. It's an organisation that is corrupt, corrupting, destructive and dangerous. David Miscavige is its leader and the tone of the organisation is reflects him as much as it reflected Hubbard before him. I don't like David Miscavige and I don't like the church of scientology organisation.

Why the obsession with what the organisation has purchased terryeo? I don't recall stating they'd only purchased 2 sq ft, if I did it was definitely a typo. The organisation has being buying up land and buildings at a great rate around the world, I've not been able to keep up with it. Am I impressed, well no I am not. I know the organisation has a lot of money but it doesn't change what the organisation is. I also know that membership is growing in the African continent and the South America's. I also know the dynamics of some of the relationships being forged there. I'm also aware of the myriad of front companies set up by the organisation in tax havens around the world and how this is sold to those members who are aware of land being purchased prior to collection of funds to purchase it.

As to the tech though, I can tell you the original theory behind touch assists and why they are not being done properly today in accordance with LRH original tech.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Touch assists are performed as follows. Paraphrased from Scientology handbook.

0.Administer first aid before you begin.

1. Have person sit or lie down, whatever position will be most comfortable.

2. Tell them you’re going to do a Touch Assist, briefly explain the procedure.

3. Give command “Feel my finger,” then touch a point using moderate finger pressure. Get acknowledgement

4. Acknowledge by saying “Thank you” or “Okay” or “Good,” etc.

5. Continue giving the command, touching and acknowledging when the person has indicated he has done the command.
….
6. Continue the assist until the person feels better. Indicators…
....
7. When this occurs, tell the person, “End of assist.”

This is per original but a key piece of Hubbard advice is missing; after a while you are meant to STOP GIVING THE COMMAND, but continue touching, being acknowledged and acknowledging.

This massively improves the benefits of touch assists and it annoyed Hubbard that it was repeatedly being left out. Hubbard mentioned this several times but on record in his "Assists" lecture given on the Flag Ship Apollo 3rd Oct 1968. Yet the handbook is still wrong (advice is not mentioned) and y'all are still doing it wrong.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: You stop giving the command so the person gets in to state of focusing on feeling the finger all the time while in session, concentrating the effort of the mind away from the pain completely, not just for the moment after the command is given. This is not an advance on the basic tech it is the basic tech, as will be apparent if you listen to the lecture referenced above fully and properly (word clear). In L Ron Hubbards own words ("You don't articulate the command more than you have to").

The acknowledgement is also anything the PC is comfortable with, a nod, grunt what ever - I've seen Scientologists instruct the PC to say "yes" in acknowledgement.

The advice regarding reducing the content of the Engram is also missing (reducing verbalisation around the subject).
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Lastly if people want to believe in scientology as taught by L Ron Hubbard that's fine, I have met and studied a few "independent" scientologists and people in another organisation known as the Freezone and am fine with them.

I also don't really have a problem with the members of the church of scientology I've met either, they are mostly well meaning and I am sad they have been deluded by the organisation. They organisation also has a few more sharks than David Miscavige though, though none quite as big. Guess we're shark fishing.

I do discourage anyone from joining the organisation calling itself the "church of scientology" though, on balance it is a very destructive organisation that needs to be dismantled in its current form, just as the Catholic Church needed to be exposed for hiding away their paedophile priests; a target among many which is now under serious proactive observation. Nothing against Catholics, but the organisation hiding away paedophile priests is a different story.

Scientology as a belief system will likely survive the scrutiny, that's fine, BUT the organisation will be collapsed systematically over time; the strain is only going to get worse with real estate deals going bad (long / short term investment losses), deceptive appearances (friends being foes) etc.
37 months ago: DeanFox, no matter what you call yourself, it is obvious that you oppose the Church of Scientology in efforts to do good works, to disseminate Ron Hubbard's philosophy, to provide safe haven for the delivery of auditing and Scientology education. While clever of word, your intention to harm is clear.
thetagal
thetagal
Elma, WA
37 months ago: Terryeo, Are you aware that the CST bylaws state "..f. "Religion of Scientology" and "Church of Scientology" shall not necessarily be co-terminal..."

The two are not the same. You are protecting the Church of Scientology, and its senior corporations. You aren't protecting the religion of Scientology.

Deanfox appears to have uncommon good sense, and until you realize that with the "apparent good" the COS does publicly, behind that are continuous overts that just don't go away, i.e. my daughter can't talk to me.

And when something shrinks (the COS has, it has never had as good statistics as it did in the 70s) you can look for an SP...or two or three. Not sit and say that someone who is pointing out the obvious like deanfox is evil intentioned.

Strongly suggest you read http://www.scientology-cult.org --or if that doesn't come up try "net" or "com". Three different writers, relatively recently from GOLD will tell you what is happening. Your own people won't tell you because most of them don't know, they are shielded.

I'm not here to attack Scientology. The tech works.
It may or may not work to the nth degree that LRH projected, but it works faster and better than any other science/philosopy/religion ever has.

I understand your way of handling the communications. It is probably your "hat" to do so. Just don't close your eyes. After all, Ron only wanted to teach people to "look."

37 months ago: DeanFox, attacks the Church of Scientology. Thetagal seems to defend his position. But, if you were honestly studying or practicing Scientology, and found the tech useful, you would simply study and perform. There would be no reason to attack the Church of Scientology. I therefore suspect not all is as you say it is.

DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Terryeo, I've studied the works of L Ron Hubbard, not as a practitioner but as an intellectual and philosophical exercise. I've also studied various other philosophies. I can see where L Ron Hubbard drew his inspiration from; I know what he teaches and also why he chose to teach it. I can follow his thinking.

I don't practice scientology because I've no need to; I achieve what I want to, I'm at cause if you will. I've no need to dogmatically follow other philosophies but freely admit I've drawn inspirations from others, including scientology. This may not work for others, the tech clearly resonates with thetagal and that's fine there are in fact a lot of independent scientologists who criticise the organisation.

You won't believe this but I don't know thetagal, this person has agreement with mes (thank you thetagal) as I have agreement with thetagal and we have agreement with many others, yet we all practice different philosophies and we would not agree on everything; nor should we because variety isn't just the spice of life it is the essence.

I attack the many damaging aspects of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology just as I pro actively assisted in the outing of Catholic paedophiles being covered up by the Catholic church and am active in many other areas. I don't seek to destroy philosophies or dictate what others believe I simply seek to reduce damage which I do in a variety of ways.

And to confirm a previous statement of yours yes I do analyse, judge and criticize.
36 months ago: DeanFox, you say that you attack damaging aspects of the Church. But your first post on this page belittles the Church of Scientology's technology by saying it is expensive. When actually, much of is can be found in public libraries. Your second post says that the Freezone practices Scientology, which is untrue. Nor does that posting attack "the many damaging aspects", but instead, like your first posting, promotes other practices.

Your third posting attacks me personally and goes on to include the leadership of the Church. Nothing there about "damaging aspects". In further posts you tone it down a little and finally begin to address what you say your interests are. People should understand, you don't say what you say you are saying, don't know what you are talking about, and babble about things you haven't studied. Other than that, hey, have fun.
36 months ago: "Your second post says that the Freezone practices Scientology, which is untrue."

Prove it.

"People should understand, you don't say what you say you are saying, don't know what you are talking about, and babble about things you haven't studied. Other than that, hey, have fun."

For one, this above post is sounds like a bunch of babbling and took several times of rereading it to figure out what you were saying. Second, how much of the stuff that you talk about do you know?
Cite some sources, show some facts. Cite you background which gives you legitmacy and expertise on the subject.

My expert background: Ranger who likes danger.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
36 months ago: Terryeo. I feel sorry that you, like many are caught in the organisations'* psychological trap. (*The organisation calling itself the church of scientology.)

I feel sorry for you because I have no reason to believe you are anything other than sincere in your belief that the organisation is helping society and is in no way harmful.

We've already done the library thing, to recap, despite the fact members a million or so dollars have been collected from members in order to put a copy of the basics in libraries across the world the verifiable reality is those books are not there. This doesn't matter to the organisation because the exercise was not about making sure The Basics were available in all those libraries rather that the money came in from the members.

Even if they were The Basics are really just the tip of the iceberg with respect to the teachings provided by the organisation. You know this because for all your years in the organisation there will still be new things to learn, new courses to go on, lectures you haven't heard or understood. It is these that cost the money.

The organisation is very expensive for what it provides, this is fact. You've already argued that the "super powers" it's implied one can obtain from doing the organisations' courses are a lot more mundane than the outward razzmatazz (images of superman etc) suggests. When it comes down to it the organisation provides self help courses which may provide some benefit to some people some of the time. To these people the benefit may seem profound. What myself and others point out is that there are people who have achieved a great deal of self improvement for a lot less money.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
36 months ago: You saying The Freezone don't practice Scientology is like a member of the Catholic Church saying Protestants don't practice christianity or visa versa. The only reason The Freezone don't use "scientology" a lot in their literature is because the organisation calling itself the church of scientology maintains their legal claim over the name. This fact however does not belie the truth that The Freezone seek to practice the teachings of L Ron Hubbard aka Scientology.

There are also quite a few independent scientologists out there too, who often get auditing services from independent auditors. These operate on the quiet because the organisation calling itself the church of scientology tries to stamp them out; they try to prevent them getting hold of e-meters and literature by monitoring the likes of e-bay for e-meter sales and using legal threats. Is there any wonder that Anonymous counts among its numbers independent Scientologists and Freezoners when this is how the organisation treats them?
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
36 months ago: Dangerranger says it all about your last post regarding me, thanks dude.

I know you believe that I cannot possibly understand the organisations' teachings without having studied them through the organisation because this is part of the indoctrination, but that is not true.

Although The Basics are not in nearly as many libraries as the organisation has told members they have been sent to (acceptable truth being they were sent...) the literature is available.

Lots of people have left the organisation and taken literature with them and have made it available; much of the high level teachings, many of L Ron Hubbard's lectures are now available to download from the Internet. The organisation will have convinced you that these are not true source though, that although the lectures are clearly in Hubbard's voice (not that you will have listened to any from the Internet) they are corrupt; ironically by being able to compare versions we can see where the organisation has made changes over the years.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
36 months ago: There is a website: http://squirrel-tech.org/ which is run by California Association of Dianetic Auditors (C.A.D.A.) you might want to take a look at that. Anonymous does not care about C.A.D.A. only the abuses of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology.

Let's look at an example of changes made to L Ron Hubbard's teachings by the organisation:

Golden Age of Tech. This IS a new learning method, developed by David Miscavige and NOT LRH. It was very well presented "The blind leading the blind" but it puts the emphasis on rote learning rather than conceptual understanding. You should realise the problem with this terryeo because you know LRH put his emphasis on conceptual understanding, talking about the glib student being a result of rote learning. GAT opens the door to robotic learning.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
36 months ago: Lastly, yes I really don't like David Miscavige because, unlike you (who I believe is a victim), I have every reason to believe David Miscavige cynically exploits members of the organisation over which he presides to maintain his observably rich life style of excess.

Unlike L Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige doesn't even practice Scientology, he simply preaches it.

Like I said, I could have done the same but I didn't because I find it morally reprehensible. Is he the only example of an abusive little dictator living off the blood, sweat, tears and often financial ruin of members of his totalitarian organisation. No, but that doesn't make it right.

While the tone of my posts may have changed from time to time, as is normal in any debate, my views are consistent and I do say what I mean; I am also willing to keep explaining my views in ever greater detail to anyone unable to understand them.
33 months ago: The Freezone doesn't disseminate Scientology, it doesn't disseminate the philosophy which is Scientology. It says it does, it presents wonderful glitz phrases that might convince you that it does; but it doesn't. There, I've said so. You do what you think most wise. Argue about it, convince yourself, do what ever you want to, but the fact will remain, Ron Hubbard willed his work to the Church of Scientology. The Freezone practices something they say is Scientology, and might honestly think it is Scientology, but it is not Scientology. But don't take my word for it, go to any Church of Scientology, talk with any of the people there. In general, Scientologists are busy producing a product, rather than fighting about whether the Freezone is producing Scientology. But, the Church has people who are trained and expert in the matter and who could respond to your arguments more fully. I've looked at the Freezone website, it looks to me that the group has misunderstood concepts which spring from misunderstood words, but that's just personal opinion. I'm also understand the Freezone doesn't use Golden Age of Tech and doesn't have understand why it should be used. Doesn't understand the concepts and tech behind it, nor understand that it was implied by Hubbard's written directions. Even though he did not explicitly call it out as necessary method. And then there is the result of GAT. It works and works better.
33 months ago: Terryeo says: "And then there is the result of GAT [Golden Age of Tech]. It works and works better."

Please provide some examples of a) how it works and b) how it works better.

The only thing functional in Scientology are the few common sense principles, definitely NOT "discovered" by Hubbard, intermixed with all the craziness

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.