Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

Scientology! I found out for myself!

Posted 37 months ago|77 comments|2,474 views
Written by
Frederick
Canada
Scientology! I found out for myself!

I first became aware of Scientology in the late 1960’s through an older cousin. He introduced me to their drill TR-0, Bullbait, at my mother’s kitchen table. I was 16. To do this drill, I sat across from him, straight faced, while he tried to make me laugh. Soon I was enrolled in the Scientology communications course.

At the time, the cult had only existed for 15 years or so. It claimed to be a new science that would soon be widely accepted. I considered this possible. After all, change was in the air. Men were about to walk on the moon. Paranoia was in the air too, because of the Viet Nam War and nonsensical drug laws. To distrust the advice of adults seemed like good sense. Given all that, a branch of science that laid down the precise characteristics of the human soul didn’t seem so far fetched.

I took some courses from the cult but I didn’t complete my last one, because I found the other members impossible to work with. It was the avarice and foolishness of the more established members that troubled me. I was also suspicious of the scientific claims of the cult because they would produce no evidence. Even asking a clear about his abilities was considered to be bad manners. Still, many seemed to be enamoured with Scientology and I did not want to jump to harsh conclusions. When I left, I reasoned that since Scientology claimed that everyone in the world would be a scientologist within four years, scientific validation, if it were ever to come, would be just around the corner. I could wait.

Back then, as today, most people took one look at Scientology and saw it to be a transparent fraud. I gave it more of a chance than most because, by that time, seven family members were involved in it and it would have been impossible for me to reject Scientology without offending them. It also gave me hope for solving personal problems, interactions with a group of people who seemed to like me, and a fresh direction in life when my education at university seemed to be stagnating.

Scientologists tell people to find out about their religion for themselves. Regrettably, I did. I am not a bigot, a criminal or a paid tool—merely someone, who years ago weighed the available evidence. I am sure that a few scientologists will read this. I don’t expect to convince any of them to believe what I believe. I expect that they are aware of many of these things, but have weighed the evidence differently.

It actually took several years after leaving before I came to any firm conclusion about Scientology. After all, if I were wrong, denouncing them would mean turning my back on immortality. And then there was the problem of alienating my family. But in time I had to admit to myself that some of the things I had seen were more than troublesome; they indicated that Hubbard was misleading his followers and that his followers would believe anything he wrote or said.

Big problem--It bothered me that I didn’t see any Scientologists, back then, from the 1950’s or even the early 1960’s. I didn’t know if they had quit or been thrown out or moved to LA for higher training. With all they claimed to offer, quitting would be worse than suicide. Being thrown out would be unthinkable because of the high ethics claimed by the organization and the super-sanity of the individuals in it. That left the higher training option and sure enough some did leave for that reason. But as time went on I saw that people were regularly turning their backs on the cult. In fact, today there is no one working for the local cult office that predates me. People are turning away from their promise of immortality faster than you could write a cheque. And a bit of research will show that in the United States L .Ron Hubbard’s personal auditor David Mayo left, his son and right hand man L. Ron Jr. left, the first clear John McMaster left, and recently high-level scientologists Warren McShane, Marty Rathbun, and Mike Rinder left too. Overnight these individuals changed from the most ethical people on the planet to the most wicked. It is hard to shrug this off with “Scientology isn’t for everybody” as I was told on the street by an OT3 who was handing out leaflets.

Another big problem-- Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, which is the first book of Scientology, makes claims that can’t be backed up. Hubbard claimed the book to be the result of 15 years of research involved 270 subjects and that the process of Dianetics produced results as consistent as physics or chemistry. Dianetics claims that it will give a person 20/20 vision once he or she reaches the level of clear. Why then does former cult president Heber Jentzsch wear glasses? Why do other clears wear glasses? I have to conclude that Hubbard just lied. He claimed that clears get “complete recall of everything which has ever happened to him or anything he has ever studied”. In fact, he made this claim in Dianetics, twice. I have met many clears. None of them have perfect memory or anything approaching it. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Hubbard made many other claims of unusual characteristics for clears in Dianetics.. I have seen no evidence for the existence of any of these characteristics.

Another big problem—While I was a member two Canadian OT8’s who were married to one another, died simultaneously in a car crash. At the time, OT8 was defined as someone who had “control, knowingly and at will over matter, energy, space, time, life and thought”. I couldn’t imagine why they would want to die in a car crash.

Another big problem-- In 1971 I was told that the local cult office would be employing 100,000 people by 1975. Sometimes I don’t mind estimates being off, even by a factor of a thousand, but I do mind it when the person making the prediction claims to control time. Back then Scientology claimed 15,000,000 adherents worldwide. Today they variously claim eight or ten million followers and to be the world’s fastest growing religion. Why did representatives of the cult claim 100,000 followers in Canada in the Globe and Mail and 200,000 followers in Canada a few months later on Global television? If that were true they would likely be the world’s fastest growing religion. However the last census brought in their number at only 1525. The cult offices I have seen are small and I have never seen many people at their events. It seems obvious that the scientologists have just made up numbers without any basis in reality.

Another big problem-- Four friends and family members, all OT’s, have left affirming soon after that OT’s have no special powers. I have never seen an OT phenomenon though they were talked about even while I was taking my very first course almost forty years ago.

Another big problem-- I was told back then that if I even heard the name of the Galactic Overlord that started all the problems on Earth I would die of pneumonia within two days-- L. Ron Hubbard said so. The story of Xenu is out. Instances of pneumonia have not increased. It costs, in most cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars before a scientologist gets to the point where he hears about Xenu. If recruits heard about Xenu earlier on, Hubbard wouldn’t get their money.

When I mention my experiences to scientologists the usual reaction is, “That was then this is now” or a version of that, followed by a pitch to return to the fold. But over the years, far more evidence has come out through books, magazines and the internet, showing that the cult is far, far worse than I ever thought it to be.

I must conclude that there is no more need to find out about Scientology for oneself then there is a need to join the neo-Nazi’s, a biker gang, take crystal meth or jump out a window. A wise man learns from his mistakes. A smart man learns from other people’s mistakes. I can only claim to be wise.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
37 months ago: Hey Frederick,

I know all about Rinder and Rathbun blowing (Rathbun is now trying to start up his own squirrel outfit offering counseling at $995.00/hour), but what's this about Warren McShane? I know I won't be alone in wanting to see cold, hard facts on his current dispensation. As far as anyone knows, he's still locked up in SP hall and takes daily beatings from the asthmatic dwarf when he's not out romancing the Cruiser.

Hail Xenu!

Big Mook
37 months ago: Why is scientology always referred to as a cult? What makes it any more of a cult than any other religion or organization? Just an honest question because personally I don't really know anthing about it. I find it hard to find reliable information on the subject, and from my own experience, "truths" written about different religions are often written by people who misunderstand, or misinterpret the facts presented to them. So i guess my question is scientology may appear weird, but so do a lot of aspects of other religous groups, so why does it deserve the derogatory term of "cult" more so than the Catholic church, or Baptist?
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Strictly speaking scientology isn't a cult, it is a belief system however the organisation calling itself the church of scientology is a cult. There are those who believe what Hubbard taught (not me) but don't subscribe to the church of scientology organisation.

The word cult is defined as:

# followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices
# fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season"
# followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader
# a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false; "it was a satanic cult"

From this we see that a cult need not be dangerous or damaging however more often than not they are. The church of scientology is dangerous and damaging because of its long term aspirations to clear the planet and the aggression, isolationism and elitism inherent in its policies and teachings.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
37 months ago: For Xenuluvr-- I suspect that the numbers they use in describing their membership are pulled out of the air, however I have no special knowledge. There is an essay on the internet by someone who claims to have invented the membership number. He said that he initially chose a number over a million because he wanted the number to seem impressive. He then had to have the number grow, leading us to the absurd figures they use now.

For Big Mook-- I got the information about McShane off of xenu.net. I have no special information there. I don't know him. I have seen no video of him speaking. I have not heard him on a radio show.

For Sugar Pop-- In Canada, Scientology is not considered to be a religion, nor is it in most of the Western world. There are various definitions of cult. In the one I use a)it baits in the early stages (with "we will make you happier and more able") and switches later on(to ridding a person of body thetans) b) there is an emphasis on money c)the money is not used for the benefit of the membership d)all information comes from a charasmatic leader e)it puts itself apart and in opposition from the rest of the world. Now, these characteristics are not absolute. All religions have some element of them. But when they are dominant in a religion it is fair to call the religion a cult.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
37 months ago: DeanFox gives the most technically precise definition of the term "cult" and several others have given valid descriptions of what makes the Church of Scientology a cult rather than a religion, but let me offer my own concise definition: the difference between a cult and a religion is that whereas a religion would like to be part of your life, a cult wants to consume your life.

The exact dividing line is blurry, and if you were to join a Christian monastery and take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, then Christianity would also consume your life, leaving you with nothing else. So sometimes Christianity, the world's most popular religion, can also act as a cult. There are also many odd variants on Christianity, some of which clearly qualify as cults.
37 months ago: Thanks. A lot of my questions were answered.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: To Skeptic: I like your analysis. It's true, the divide between cult and religion is blurred.

My take also suggests that not all cults are "bad" per sa. If monks want to take vows of chastity and poverty and live in essentially a cult that's fine, mainly because they don't go out and insist to others that it's the only way to live.

Cults tend to become dangerous when they believe they have an external enemy and must fight to over come it. This puts the cult collective on a war footing and changes group dynamics to make them more isolationist and aggressive and often elitist.

Interestingly this mechanism is behind the neo-conservative notion that society needs an enemy to control it; during the cold war it was communism and now it's terrorism with leanings to communism as a back up. It's also been said the world would get along a lot better if we were invaded by aliens; having a common enemy would motivate us to work together.
chacha
chacha
Los Angeles, CA
37 months ago: Whether a cult or religion, the outcome is the same. A totalitarian group where if you disagree, it means you have a "misunderstood word."

Scientology never asks you to believe but to find out for yourself. Then, through the use of semantics, teach you to bend every word in the dictionary to validate the claims of their founder. This is a group of people who WANT to believe and are willing to go to great lengths of allowing the truth to be altered so it goes their way.

They even have their own definition of reality so that all experiences can be measured according to that definition.

This is a brilliant form of manipulation in which the student becomes both the manipulator and the manipulated. Members know that they will be sucked dry of their money -- they experience it after every completed course or counseling session. Staff members are generally aware that they are being lied to for the most part as many have seen the conditions of other staff before they join. They just choose to believe it will get better or they will be strong enough to overcome the abuses.

People in Scientology aren't ignorant or blind -- they are just in denial.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
37 months ago: In regard to DeanFox's statement that cults tend to become dangerous when they have external enemies, cults are always dangerous. A cult consumes the lives of those who belong to it, and a cult tries relentlessly to recruit those who don't yet belong to it, so it is dangerous to everyone. When it is actively fighting with some real or imagined external enemy, that creates additional dangers, of course.
37 months ago: A person would not have to look far to find "enemies" on today's Earth. Human rights abuses, poverty, drugs, drug lords, and even some governments act as an enemy would act. These things may seem far away, but history has proven that when ignored, these things rise up, first eroding away good and then striking with more violence.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
37 months ago: This is a discussion based upon Frederick's detailed observation of the failure of Scientology to deliver what it promises. Your latest comment, Terryeo, about the existence of enemies in the world, appears to be utterly irrelevant. Yes, we all have enemies, sadly enough. But Scientology still doesn't work. Frederick found out for himself. So did I. And if you think otherwise, you are fooling yourself.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: To skeptic, cults as in monastic orders are not really dangerous IMHO. OK so they consume the life of the individual but the individual tends to live with a reasonable quality of life not being over worked or deprived of sleep etc. I guess to some it is a very simple life with few, if any, problems. They also keep themselves to themselves as much as possible.

Enemies. The dynamics where by cults identify enemies works to galvanise the group, making them aggressive, protective, isolationist and often elitist. As Terryeo said it is easy for a cult to identify enemies because there are many apparent enemies. Cults on a crusade are always dangerous, they not only believe the enemy must be destroyed but that their ways must be imposed to achieve this; clear the planet and all that. Very polarised your either with us or you are the enemy, no tolerance.
37 months ago: Scientology is a religion as it deals with man as a spirit.
-
For my knowledge all major religions would like to have their religion usad by all men on Earth and so I don't see a problem if also Scientology has this goal.
-
Regaring the problem of money any religio does need moeny to build churches, support the clergy, promote and defend itself etc. This was true for religions in the past and it is true for religions today.
-
If you read about relgions born centuries ago, very often they have stories about "aliens" or "beings" from other places (angels, devils, nephilim - or see at the Vimana in indian tradition) so what is the problem if also Scientology has some of this?
-
The 'best' definition of "cult" and "sect" I have found was this one: a member of a cult or sect is someone who follows a relgion different than yours. In other words a person usually thinks that he is following the best religion and that other religions are worse or bad.
For me all religions have some positive and negative points and there are no religions that are absolute good or absolute evil. By reading Scientology books I have found a lot od data useful and I think that others would benefit from these data also, so I think that supporting the efforts of the church of Scientology to get this knowledge in the hands of men is right.
I think that other people have the right to promote their religion. I respect that. I think that others should respect the right of scientologists to promote their own religion.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: The beliefs of scientology aren't the problem rather it is the organisation that calls itself the church of scientology.

This organisation encourages an zeal in their members who are encouraged to believe themselves superior to all others. A mentality shared by extremist groups around the world.

The organisation carries on extremist agendas, they are for instance on a crusade "The Global Obliteration of Psychiatry", to be replaced by their own "dianetics". There are those who protest the psychiatric industry for various reasons who believe the organisation and its front organisation, calling itself the citizens commission on human rights, are to them like Al-Qaeda is to regular Islam.

There are a lot of independent scientologists (those who don't subscribe to the church of scientology) and a more main stream behaving organisation called The Freezone that also practice the beliefs of scientology as laid down in the teachings of L Ron Hubbard who are also concerned by the Church of Scientologys' agenda and extremist behaviour.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: The Freezone is an off shoot of the original church of scientology from the 1980's when they say the church of scientology was taken over and became the organisation it is today.

The Freezone also welcome people who wish to learn about the teachings of L Ron Hubbard as he taught during his life time. They can be contacted http://www.freezone.org/ and have a wealth of information very cheaply for those interested.

Also, for those interested many of the books can be found on the Internet, Amazon etc., cheaper than from the church of scientology organisation. Further more many recordings of L Ron Hubbard giving lectures, as used by the church of scientology and Freezone are also available on Wikileaks.com for free.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: I am not a Freezoner nor an independent scientologist. I believe the organisation calling itself the church of scientology is dangerous. Though it claims to have done many good deeds a thorough analysis determines they never do anything which doesn't benefit the organisation in some way.

The church of scientology sends out Volunteer Ministers to disaster zones with yellow tents and their literature. Their remit is: expose as many people, victims of the disaster, to their tech (read recruit people); get good PR for the organisation (they are always meant to have a PR person there); make sure "the psychs" are kept away from the people (actively block such aid if necessary while spreading their "anti psych" literature). They claim to provide extra pairs of hands for the emergency services however because they don't bring provisions or shelter for themselves they become a drain on local resources.

Their out reach missions may start off in a charitable way however to succeed they must be made to turn a profit.

The people who are VMs though believe they are doing the right thing because they have been taught that to spread the tech, clear the planet and protecting people from the "evil psychs" is helping and are the only objectives worth pursuing.
37 months ago: Well sure, DeanFox, I get it, you are presenting the case where "must show a profit" stands in front of all else. The Volunteer Minsters, of course, charge nothing. The labor is all volunteer, the Church provides organization and materials and there is no profit, in fact, certainly it costs travel money, etc.

But this action parallels the activities of other Churches, where the minister or a group of lay people close to the minister, succor people in distress. Where a family doesn't have enough food, where hardship is intense, such as after a family death, these "volunteer" succor and help actions have a rich history.

Actually, the Church of Scientology has often been criticized by the media because of its pay-as-you-go policy, criticized for not enough charity activity. While the Volunteer Ministers program is clearly charity. So you see, Volunteer Ministers is more mainstream, than exception.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Volunteer ministers often travel to disaster zones at their own cost, others use money donated by members of the church of scientology. Nothing really wrong there.

The problem with volunteer ministers (VMs) is they believe they are helping by selling the church of scientology at disaster zones. Other churches do'nt sell their beliefs at disaster zones; no they shouldn't!

VMs set up their high visibility yellow VM tents, replete with church of scientology literature and offer "assist" to victims; mainly "touch" assists, which I've already established are done wrong anyway. They also explain to the victims how the "tech" can help them, hand out promotional material and contact details - some VMs even try to collect contact details from victims!

Other churches don't come and open prayer tents. Other churches have donation drives to provide food, water or medical supplies to the victims. The VMs don't.

Ministers from other churches go to help at a disaster zone in plain clothes not high viz vests proclaiming their church association as volunteer ministers do.

Volunteer ministers come with a PR person to ensure good coverage. No other church does that when attending a disaster zone.

Volunteer ministers at the Boxing Day Tsunami spent a lot of time warning the local victims that the psychiatrists were planning an invasion. Volunteer ministers after 7/7 in London were recorded in conversation expounding their pleasure at having prevented "the psychs" from getting to the victims. An email intercept from a Sea Org member after 9/11 states:

"Due to some brilliant maneuvering by some simply genius Sea Org Members we tied up the majority of the psychs who were attempting to get to families yesterday in Q&A, bullbait and wrangling. [... The survivors] don't know it but they need the Scientologists with LRH's tech to be here right now."

Volunteer ministers are not the same as main stream aid agencies or church sponsored aid.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: So, what does the organisation calling itself the church of scientology get out of this, aside from publicity?

All the materials used by VMs are bought from the organisation by members. The prices members pay for them are said to be "cost" yet they are far higher than similar materials cost to produce by other organisations, bearing more relation to retail prices; this is despite the fact other publishing and distribution organisations don't have low paid volunteers working for them like the church of scientology organisation does (they publish everything in house).

Of course there are also all those license fees to pay for to use the church of scientology trade marks etc.

It's amazing how many "cost" one can create when one puts one's mind to it.

There are other churches who also make shed loads of cash from their followers, I don't agree with some of the methods they use either.

I reiterate though, nothing against the over all beliefs just what some of them do, be they certain Catholics hiding paedophile priests, certain Evangelicals defrauding members or an organisation whose leader in collusion with certain members employ a cloak of a religion to cover a complex web of elaborate money making schemes.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
37 months ago: Thanks for all the thought and comments. One thing left over from my days with the cult is that I thank people a lot. Old habits die hard.

Dean and Terryeo (and everyone else here who knows about the cult) what do you think about the obvious discrepancies between Hubbard's claims in Dianetics and the abilities of the cleared members of the Church of Scientology? What do you think about the lack of OT phenomenon among scientologists? Hubbard claimed that after level five, well below clear, scientologists were no longer homo sapiens but a new kind of man. They certainly seem like men and women to me.

Back then, they told us that if we gave charity we would be rewarding down statistics so charity was not only withheld, it was strongly discouraged and seen as something that could only hurt people. Really, that's the way it was. There was also this phrase about people "pulling in" their problems. Because of all this, I see the Volunteer Ministers as largely being an attempt at achieving good press which in time would convert to more adherents and more money. If I am wrong, let them continue to help people in crisis. They could, however, help people without wearing bright Scientology T-Shirts and handing out Scientology pamphlets. People would be more likely to see them as trying to be truly helpful if they did. (Part Two to follow)
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
37 months ago:
Scientologists frequently used the word "confront". They said that people couldn't confront their problems or wouldn't confront the "reality" of Scientology. If a person couldn't do a drill correctly, sometimes their partner would say, "Flunk-- Non-confront". I must now accuse Scientologists of not being able to confront. For some, it means not being able to face that they have wasted most of their lives and hundreds of thousands of dollars in an endeavour, which is not only useless but harmful. I realize how hard it must be to accept this. It was hard for me to accept that I wasted part of my youth with this dsstructive organization. Still, Terryeo, and other Scientologists reading this, go back and read Dianetics. Blue highlight every claim Hubbard makes. Blue highlight everytime he talks about the scientific validity of his research. Then ask yourself if you have truly seen these results.
bob dobbs
bob dobbs
Geneseo, NY
37 months ago: I've never seen Volunteer Ministers called a charity except for in
a Scientology press release, like one of the ones that Google News
gets spammed with every few days, to bury the entheta.

I'd like to see a receipt or some sort of prooef that Scientology
has spent one dollar on food,clothing, or shelter for any disaster
vicitms. I'm not saying they don't exist but noone has ever produced one, paying travel expeneses for prosyletizers is not charity.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Frederick, Hubbard made some very fanciful claims regarding the abilities his tech could impart but he was quite clever in a number of ways. First, the tech works, if it doesn't then it is being applied wrong. Second, there is no fix time frame for when the results of the tech should become manifest. Third, the supposed results are nebulous and open to very wide subjective interpretation with the kicker... Forth it is strictly against the rules to invalidate someone's "win". Oh and fifth with multiple life spans there is always next time.

A lot of people wake up to the fact that after a lot of investment, a lot of unnecessary hardship and a lot of unnecessary suffering that they haven't gain anything. If anything their growth as a human stalled and worse been stunted and a span of their life wasted.

Others however go in to denial and either believe salvation is not achievable for them in this life time, but if they continue to work hard within the organisation it may be in the next. Or they believe they have attained benefits, while ignoring the fact they would be useless outside of the organisation.

That's another problem, the organisation produces people whose ability to function outside of the organisation is severely stunted. Just the fear of life outside the organisation is enough to keep them in when all other reasons for staying are gone.

Public scilons also convince themselves it's all worth it mainly due to the amount of money they put in; it must be or I'm a mug syndrome.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Homo Novis, (New Man) really only instils members with an elitism; they really start believing they are Homo Novis without any empirical evidence of functions so beyond Homo Sapien to justify the belief.

This prejudicial elitism is what facilitates some of the worst behaviours in members of the organisation. Because they are so much better than mere homo sapien the rules that apply to homo sapiens don't apply to them. It's the same mentality that was encouraged among the Nazi party and by extension to the people in Nazi Germany.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
37 months ago: Thanks for the answers Dean. Your statements are very insightful.

Hubbard certainly does hedge his bets on his claims. And I am working from memory here-- in Dianetics he states that vision will become 20/20 unless the person is cleared at a very late age. He also says that going clear takes about 200 hours. Today, of course, they have new and improved Dianetics and it shouldn't take as long. So I must assume that unless a person is very old he will get 20/20 vision after, on average, 200 hours. Still, no clear has improved vision. I would love someone with the cult to say "Hubbard lied about his research". The best I have heard was Miscavage on TV saying, "He postulated [things that didn't happen]." He didn't postulate-- he disclosed the results of what he claimed to be 15 years of scientific experiments and got caught in his lies.

I think you have said just about everything in your two statements, very succinctly, that needs to be said. They are virtually identical to my own observations.
37 months ago: Ron Hubbard, of course, made public his estimates, based on his work. But self-improvement is not a one-way street. You don't pop a pill or do push ups and suddenly pop into a stable, happier condition. Much of what he did filled in small gaps so that self-improvement became more stable, worked better, could be done more widely, and so on.

One element he developed later and not with his first book -- Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health, was educational methods. These help a person understand and, ideally, prevent misunderstanding. With these in place it became unnecessary for Mr. Hubbard, himself, to audit. Other people begin to reproduce the results Hubbard got, more reliably. Alas, there are those among us who are convinced no self-improvement is possible.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Terryeo, no problem with the essence of paragraph one in your above post. I also understand the premiss of paragraph two however the statements made in that paragraph do not logically lead to the conclusion of the paragraph, "Alas, there are those among us who are convinced no self-improvement is possible."

This is not to say there aren't people who don't believe one can improve ones self rather that their is nothing in the paragraph that leads logically to that conclusion.

This is important because it demonstrates disjointed, corrupt, logical thought. You present a logical train of thought in this paragraph right up until the last sentence which is a tag on; a logically unconnected statement which in your mind is incorrectly connected.

This statement is made on the specious statement that those that don't believe in scientology don't believe in self-improvement. Beware of specious thoughts, they are mental traps.

Self improvement is possible. One can improve ones mental faculties and demonstrate quite impressive feats of mental acuity. One can also do this without any of L Ron Hubbard's methods; check out the abilities of performer Derren Brown (try google + YouTube) who's sharpened his mental abilities to razor sharp without using any of L Ron Hubbard's teachings.

DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: This is not to say L Ron Hubbards' teachings don't produce self improvement (not actually the issues behind the problems with the organisation calling itself the church of scientology) just that there are other ways of doing it and demonstrably more effective ways.

One can also improve oneself physically though diet and exercise. One has to be careful though of extreme methods which can lead to long term damage for short term or no gain; there are regimes using steroids to enhance the body which are very dangerous. There are also regimes based on fallacious beliefs in how the body works; detox regimes that result in the build up of dangerous levels of toxins or damage to body organs for instance.

Self improvement is possible, I've not met anyone who didn't think they could learn something new, but L Ron Hubbards' teachings are neither the only nor best way to achieve it.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Lastly, there are those who do use L Ron Hubbards teachings and do improve themselves but outside the organisation calling itself the church of scientology. Ironically the environment within the organisation actually stifles real improvement by corrupting the thought mechanisms of adherents to its own ends.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
37 months ago: The whole point of Frederick's rant, a point which I can personally confirm since I too found out for myself, is that there is actually very little self-improvement which results from Scientology, although there is an enormous amount of self-delusion. People will write astonishing success stories and boast of super-human abilities, however, these abilities are all imaginary and are never seen outside of the minds of those who imagine them.

What's the difference between imagining that you had lived a previous life, and remembering a previous life? Subjectively the mental pictures you see look the same. But without objective verification there is no reason to believe that what you imagine is real. The same applies to exteriorization, and all the other amazing OT phenomena. No OT has ever produced a phenomenon that could actually be observed by another person. It all happens inside his or her mind. That's what we (those of us who live in the real world) call imagination.

There is a book by L. Ron Hubbard called "A Test Of Whole Track Recall" in which he publishes lots of lovely photographs of ruins that he visited in the Mediterranean, and which, he claims, he found in accordance with his memories of past lives. However, anyone can photograph ruins. That is not proof. And there is no proof. Ever.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Skeptic, I said improve not by how much or from what level. :-)

Go check out Derren Brown, he is not a scientologist, has never studied "the tech" (and is opposed to cultism in general) and some of his feats of mental acuity are amazing (perhaps even OT like). He does admit though he augments these with other skills like slight of hand and misdirection, never the less impressive.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
37 months ago: I do not dispute the fact that people can develop remarkable abilities; that has been abundantly demonstrated throughout history. But the OT abilities promised by Scientology are another matter. Those are delusional. If there is one ability which Scientologists actually do develop, it is the capacity for self-deception. They become very good at that. I would think that there is no one who is more adept at self-deception than Scientologists. They are the grand masters. But even so, reality has a way of catching up with people. Many Scientologists have eventually had a very rude awakening.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
37 months ago: Skeptic's experiences are similar to my own. I have met many people who while in Scientology were quick to say that they had superhuman abilities. After leaving they either admitted that they were deluded or were unable to demonstrate their powers. Having seen this phenomenon of self-delusion it is now important that I get a very high level of proof from people who claim superpowers. I could go on and make this a "rant" all by itself but suffice it to say, I remain skeptical on the matters of mind reading, seeing the future, levitation, out of body experiences and all the other garden variety superpowers. I have seen a lot of out and out fraud in these matters but never anything resemembling a super human ability.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Skeptic, Frederick. You are correct to be sceptical of superpowers, I am too. Check out http://www.randi.org/site/, another organisation I support dedicated to using science to debunk quackery (including scientology).

Derren Brown incidentally does not claim super powers and denies psychic ability. He merely demonstrates what can be achieved by mixing highly honed observational skills and well trained intuition with illusion and showmanship. His demonstrations exceed anything any scientologist has ever been able to do. (Scientologists will not be able to prove me wrong because none of them can demonstrate anything better than Derren Brown).

Scientology will never lead to "super powers" no matter how it is employed. It isn't even a very good tool for self improvement; elements may help some people gain some insights about themselves in some areas but the results will be nothing measurably dramatic even at the more mundane level of say improved concentration or greater comprehension. It's quite inefficient really.

Scientology as practised within the organisation calling itself the church of scientology is damaging because thanks to the ways it is employed and the environment it results in subversion of critical thought, isolationism, delusions and prejudicial elitism.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
37 months ago: Skeptic, Fredrick. Thank you for sharing your experiences. It is people such as yourselves being ready to share such experiences with the cult of scientology that are helping to inoculate others against it.

36 months ago: You guys are such an amusement, really. Life is good when you know how.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
36 months ago: Well Terryeo; I'm truly glad that you believe you've found the answer to life, the universe and everything. You can now afford to stop searching and obey your Hubbardaware. I'm glad for you and I truly pity you at the same time. There is so much to life beyond what Hubbard said. Why limit yourself?

DeanFox
DeanFox
England
36 months ago: Terryeo, love that simple statement, "life is good when you know how". It's elegant, if slightly arrogant in its simplicity. Is your life good for the right reasons though?

Many lead what they say are good lives. Despite what some say crime can pay, there are many corrupt individuals who will tell you life is good for them.

So just because you believe your life is good doesn't mean you're doing any good.

Life is good for me; the inoculation of people against the influences of corrupt organisations like the church of scientology is a part of that life I enjoy and take satisfaction from.

I don't expect you to see this as good, just as I don't expect you to see that the life that David Miscavige leads thanks to all the money his minions in the organisation bring in is actually bad.

DeanFox
DeanFox
England
36 months ago: I could have gone the same way David Miscavige went. Although I didn't have the benefit of a ready made organisation to usurp I could have created my own organisation based on a quasi religious philosophy. I could have had members work for peanuts, producing stuff cheaply to sell for big profits.

I could have arranged it so the profits would soak away in to a myriad of front and ancillary companies.

I could have even made it so while I lived a very wealthy life style on the backs of my minions they would be so locked in by my "philosphy" that the threat of castigation would have them begging me to let them stay, pathetically offering to do anything to get back in to my good graces.

I could easily have done that, but it seemed wrong some how.

Sure I'd have been a lot richer. I'd probably have been very happy with the adoration of my minions. I'd probably have been quite happy being able to abuse my minions without consequences...

My conscience got in the way though. No idea why because I don't believe in karma nor in divine punishment; it just seemed wrong so I decided I didn't want to.

I ended up enjoying my life in other ways. It's had its ups and downs, mostly up and on balance a great deal of fun. I've travelled a fair bit, met many interesting people and experience many interesting things. For the most part I've done what I've wanted. Even done some good for others too.

I'd be lying if I said I hadn't been hurt or I hadn't hurt someone but that is just a fact of life I try to keep to a minimum.

Like Mecca Anon says, why limit yourself - we don't.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
36 months ago: Terryeo-- My short essay is there to educate more than amuse. What do you think about the once happy scientologists that have been removed from the cult or walked away? What do you think about Hubbard's promises which never materialized? I thought my essay was pretty clear but you fail to respond to the communication.
36 months ago: Hey, Frederick, you're never going to get anything useful out of Terryeo. He's a long-standing shill for Cof$, and can't "confront" your points head-on, lest he stop using the very same doublethink that keeps him entrenched in the evil cult of greed in the first place.

He has been programmed to deflect all criticism, and never defend his beliefs, as this is what Hubtard told all Sci-bots to do. Further, he can't question the ramblings of Hubtard, because Hubtard taught that if you don't get it, it's purely your fault, and to find your misunderstoods and withholds before going forward.

Hail Xenu (and Seth)!!
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
36 months ago: Your right Big Mook. And as I said in my essay, I really didn't expect to change any Scientologist's point of view. It would just be nice if he could DUPLICATE and CONFRONT, the way they told us to, way back on the early courses. I think that eventually, he will be enturbulated though. No one can bang his head up against suppressives like me and you as long as Terryeo has without something sinking in. Terryeo, disconnect or you will succumb to our suppressive influences. They will label you PTS and charge you for more auditing. But, Terryeo, if you want to keep up this conversation... What do you think about the once happy scientologists that have been removed from the cult or walked away? What do you think about Hubbard's promises which never materialized?
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
36 months ago: Terryeo, I have given my efforts some thought. In the last 17 days I have inoculated over a thousand people against a debilitating disorder called Scientology. You have helped. Your non-sequitor comments have shown readers what happens to people once they become members of the cult. The superior mental state that you believe you possess will tell you to laugh this off. People who know even the littlest bit about psychology call that, "Defending your neurosis".
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
36 months ago: DeanFox
England said;

"Go check out Derren Brown, he is not a scientologist, has never studied "the tech" (and is opposed to cultism in general) and some of his feats of mental acuity are amazing (perhaps even OT like). He does admit though he augments these with other skills like slight of hand and misdirection, never the less impressive."

I may add that I cannot think of a single instance where someone became a Scientology member and then became a top name in his or her field. One would think that all of those super men that Scientology is allegedly manufacturing would all be key figures in society. Instead they skulk around the fringes.

A number of people showed potential in the entertainment fields, were recruited and reached stardom, but I would argue that they were already on their way to becoming notable figures. Many of them are not even shown "mainstream" Scientology, rather they are given very special treatment.

Scientology to my mind does not seem to enhance the capabilities of people. Rather, it adds unneeded layers of complication to their lives and has the added liability of not allowing people to think for themselves. I don't see this as an advantage. It does not seem to have the power to make people better, it simply makes them less critical of Scientology itself. Also not an advantage.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
36 months ago: Yes, it would be nice if someone had a cognition which cured cancer.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
36 months ago: @Fredrick, oh you tease, you're surely fishing for that classic Hubbard quote "...not smoking enough causes cancer". LOL - Of course this is out of context, what he actually said was:

"Well, there are societies in England that are having an awfully good time fighting the cigarette. They can't do anything else, so they fight cigarettes. And they say that the cigarette causes lung cancer. And they've -- you've been hearing something of this, I'm sure. Yeah. Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer. Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer! If anybody is getting a cancerous activity in the lung, the probabilities are that it's radiation dosage coupled with the fact that he smokes. And what it does is start to run out the radiation dosage, don't you see. But I'd say that would be better than not running out any of the radiation dosage at all and the number of lung cancer cases which exist, of course, that don't smoke are just forgotten about by these societies, but they are very numerous."

tl;dr Smoking rights radiation sickness and prevents cancer.

Taken from Auditor Effect on Meter, 19th July 1961

BTW, I've been accused in another thread of always wanting the last word so could someone else do the honours, sorry I just couldn't resist rising to Frederick's bait.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
36 months ago: Those were back in the days when there was still some controversy about smoking being the cause of cancer. Atomic war and radiation was on everyone's mind so he linked the two and came up with the usual nonsense. I have never read that part of L.Ron's holy scripture. Thanks for pointing it out.

It is not simply that L.Ron was wrong. He is wrong on a scientific matter that he implies he has investigated through auditing. It is also very specific, implying a study on at least several people. In fact, it is hard to come to any other conclusion than he was talking out of his hat, with no knowledge other than that of a common man with a wild idea he was trying to promote.

I wonder what Terryeo thinks of it.


My experience was that a larger percentage of Scientologists smoked than smoked in the general population. I also understand that they liked to smoke a cigarette that we didn't sell in Canada called Kools, just like L.Ron.

DeanFox
DeanFox
England
36 months ago: L Ron was wrong on a lot of things, another great L Ron argument was that not having sex caused venereal disease; STDs to the more modern folk. SHSBC #27 July 1963.

Interestingly the lecture starts out heading towards a good point then wildly missed it. After banging on about how objections to sex education around the USA weren't helping the problem of VD he stated - celibacy causes VD. His logic, VD prevents sex, so sex prevents VD. Huh?

Hear it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pSKex2Ruvw
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
36 months ago: I will go to that site. You know, I went to google news this morning. The headlines were about the Tamils in Sri Lanka, Obama in Israel and the situation in Burma. There was nothing there about a science fiction writer finding a way to make people control matter, energy, space and time. I clicked on Technology. The news was about Nasa, computer games and university funding. Again, nothing about L.Ron's discoveries. Scientology has been around over 50 years. The man invented a scam that has hooked in about 50,000 Americans with promises of omnipotence. And these people won't change their minds whatever you or I say. Most, thankfully, will realize on their own one day that they were taken and their waste of time and money will be a difficult thing to face. Until then, what we really do is stop other vulnerable people from getting involved.
36 months ago: Fredrick, you've posted your opinion. The elements of information which contribute to its questionability are two. First, why should there be news about people controlling matter, energy, space and time? And second, apparently, you are convinced there is some kind of scam.

A scam is to receive nothing, after having exchanged for something. Scientology's something isn't gold and silver, land or bridges. The something is a better IQ, a more able individual, increased awareness. Often this means a higher paying job or increased enjoyment of life. Or, perhaps, understanding what people say, better. The Church offers courses of study, at first for a small fee. And if you are happy with those results, the courses of study and the subjects of auditing become more, and donations too are gradiently more. But that is the idea, do you see? If you feel you do not get your money's worth, you simply quit. But, if you are convinced you received something of value (increased enjoyment of life, more happiness, less depression), then you go on with your next step on the Bridge to Total Freedom.

The other element of your information of questionable value is this Control of Matter, Energy, Space and Time. Apparently you are suggesting Mr. Hubbard guaranteed people would have such ability, if they donated enough money. I've seen other people state the same idea. Woot! Someone told you an idea about "mind over matter", or similar. That an OT should be able to telaport bars of gold out of Fort Knox, into his personal safe. Woot! But that isn't what the words on the page say, friend.

When a carpenter picks up a hammer and sinks a nail into wood, he has controlled Matter, Energy, Space and Time. When Ghandi was joined by 1000s of followers, he had controlled Matter, Energy, Space and Time. At no point do the words on the page state "Control of Matter, Energy, Space and Time by mental manipulation alone".
36 months ago: @Frederick. "The superior mental state that you believe you possess...." Unfortunately, Mr. Frederick, you have misunderstood my comments. I don't and haven't claimed a "superior mental state", much less the quantity of "superior mental states" you allude to.

A common practice, that. Telling someone what they have said. And then using what you say they have said as a springboard to isolate them, from you. You, who represent the common point of view. Tsk. But if you choose to walk that propaganda pathway, you'll have to put your peas in a row, first. I don't claim a superior mental state. I don't claim that anyone is mentally superior. I don't claim anyone ever gains mental control of Matter, Energy, Space and Time. I don't claim my fingernails grow faster than yours, either. Woot!
36 months ago: Mecca Anon Well Terryeo; I'm glad for you and I truly pity you at the same time. There is so much to life beyond what Hubbard said.

Cute, Mecca, cute. Hubbard wrote a lot of stuff. But he didn't write about how I fell a tree with my chain saw, so I could build a place on undeveloped land. He didn't write about the nuts and bolts of improving a shopping center, like I did at Barnsdall Mall, on Vermont Avenue and Hollywood Blvd. But that was some years ago. He didn't write a lot about the flowing rivers in the Pacific Northwest or the fragrance of honeysuckle, as far as I know. Still, somehow, I have encountered all of these things and more. Scientology has been helpful, helpful to the degree I understand it. Rather than a rote memorization to pedantically follow. On a hot day, break open a cold watermelon and enjoy, do you hear? Woot!


skeptic
skeptic
Canada
36 months ago: Terryeo, you are still not facing reality. According to you, if you drive a nail into a piece of wood using a hammer, you are thereby exercising some degree of control over matter, energy, space, and time, and therefore that is an OT ability. Of course, plenty of people are able to drive nails into wood without the benefit of doing the OT levels. It is a perfectly ordinary ability. So, in Scientology, you can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to wind up with the same abilities that you had before, but now you can call them OT abilities. Woot, indeed. (And no, the addition of sound effects does not make your comments any more persuasive.)
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
36 months ago: Terryeo, my essay is old news. It is not getting many hits. The essay was meant for the public but this response is for you. I said in my essay that I didn’t expect to convince Scientologists to believe what I believe. I stand by that. But I would like to convince you that I am making sense using the available information, and that I am not a suppressive who doesn’t want anyone to be helped.

And before I continue I want you to ask yourself this: How far would you have gotten into Scientology if, while you were on the HQS course, the only two OT8’s at the org, died, simultaneously in a car crash? Could you have rationalized that Terryeo? Please think about that and respond.

The reason I referred to the news items is because Scientology is largely irrelevant in the world. Most people know nothing about it. The ones who have heard about it think of it as the religion practiced by those two movie stars. That’s all they know. But if Scientology did what it says it can do, the news would shake the world. Other religions would be restructured. Everyone in the world would become a Scientologist. Newton’s three laws would be thrown aside. A new world order would take hold.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
36 months ago: As is, Heber Jewellers gets ten times the hits on google as former church president Heber Jentzsch.

You are correct. I am convinced that Scientology is a scam. But a scam is not, as you state, to receive nothing in exchange. A scam is to receive something other than what is promised. You claim Scientology gives a person a higher IQ. But Dianetics MSMH claims the IQ increases one point per hour of auditing. If you buy 50 hours of auditing, IQ should go up about 50 points. A rise of a few points, especially when tested by the same people who do the auditing, doesn’t cut it. I am asking a lot here but it will make a huge difference in your life—read DMSMH and blue line all the claims it makes. Then be honest with yourself about the results it actually produces. The book claims that a clear will no longer have asthma yet David Miscavige stated in a television interview with Ted Koppel that he has asthma. Dianetics claims to restore vision to 20/20 yet former church president Heber Jentzsch wears glasses. It makes dozens of other claims for outcomes that don’t happen.

In the same interview Miscavige says that Hubbard “postulated” in Dianetics that certain things would happen which did not happen. That is a lie. Hubbard didn’t postulate. He claimed that he observed these phenomenons with 270 test subjects over 15 years and that they happened consistently. I conclude that Hubbard was a liar and that Miscavige is
too.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
36 months ago: In my experience people take Scientology courses for a variety of reasons. One reason is the effectiveness of the registrars who are trained as high-pressure salesmen. Another is finding a person’s ruin. As a Scientologist, I was told to do this. Most people didn’t have their ruin on the surface so we looked deep in the past for a problem, which the person had often already handled on their own. We brought it to the surface. We then presented Scientology as the only solution to that ruin. We sold hope. Solutions were always around the corner. After a course, we indicated that there was no point stopping at that time because the big course or the big auditing session that would cure the individual was coming up next. Eventually, a person’s friends are Scientologists. Old friends slide away. A person starts to think of himself as someone who takes courses in the evening.

And yes, some of the auditing and some of the course material does do some good. Hubbard was a professional writer before he invented Dianetics and Scientology. He knew that to write a good yarn you had to do some research first to make it as real as possible. Ironically, most of the good in Scientology comes from psychiatry. He took Dianetics from the psychiatry of the day, which used regression therapy. He acknowledged the great psychiatrists for their important work in the edition of Dianetics I read in the late sixties. He made bizarre claims though, which, as I said, he just couldn’t back up.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
36 months ago: Terryeo, I have every reason to think that Scientology wants us to believe that it will give us superpowers. Here is what the Scientology Technical Dictionary says: “[An OT is] a thetan exterior who can have but doesn't have to have a body in order to control or operate thought, life, matter, energy, space and time.” That sounds like superpowers to me.

Here is what David Mayo, L.Ron’s former auditor says about OT, “In a sense we could say that the things that we have desired to achieve as an ideal scene are OT powers or becoming godlike”. Google that. See if I am misquoting or quoting out of context.

Here is a summary from the Fishman Declaration, which was submitted in a court of law during a lawsuit between Scientology and Steven Fishman. “This information consisted of course materials written by L. Ron Hubbard for a program to transform an individual into a Being with super-human powers, known as an Operating Thetan”. Again, google it. See if I have fudged the words or the context.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
36 months ago: Read the claims of Scientologists Ingo Swann, Hal Puthoff, and Pat Price.

Read some “wins” from OT’s.

What is the superpower building all about?

Most of all, for me OT is what I remember it to be. A phrase like “control knowingly and at will over matter, energy, space, time, life and thought” is not easy to forget, even forty years later. I was told they changed that definition of OT8 a few years after I heard it. I don’t know why but I suspect the definition just left them too open for lawsuits.

The stories of “OT Phenomenon” started in my second week on the Communication Course, told to the entire class by the course supervisor. Once on staff, my job supervisor told me not to tell wogs about the OT powers because hearing about that would be “off gradient”. I was just to tell people “Scientology would make people happier and more able”. Those are exact quotes by the way. I was even told that there were two reasons that I didn’t see the OT powers in action—because it would frighten people, and because wanting them would be poor motivation for joining Scientology.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
36 months ago: International Speaker Michael the Magician told people that some of his magic was just tricks and some of it was his special powers. I could go on.

Hubbard worded the outcomes of the OT courses very cleverly but not cleverly enough. He was still convicted of fraud in France. He spent many years on the ocean, and many more years hiding in California. I believe he wanted to avoid being subjected to the laws of nations. Scientologists, of course, told us other reasons for his being out of sight but I don’t believe them. I think the Scientologists were telling me “shore stories”, “on gradient information” and “acceptable truths”.

To say that Scientology doesn’t offer superpowers at the OT levels is a gross distortion I have heard only from you and a registrar who still wanted sell me courses after I showed scepticism. I suspect that you know more than you let on. If not, please do some investigation.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
36 months ago: Now let me refer to my suggestion that you see yourself as possessing a superior mental state. I was referring to this post of yours, which I find smug, “You guys are such an amusement, really. Life is good when you know how.” My reaction factors in Hubbard’s claim that people are no longer homo sapiens after Scientology level five. What is a clear or a release in Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health if not someone who is mentally superior? Remember, Dianetics is about the mind, not the soul. I don’t know if the word soul is even mentioned in the book. I don’t regret my comment. I hope you understand my point of view.

Terryeo, I am glad you have considered my statements and those of others in the forum. I am glad that you are taking me seriously. Do you have a stable datum when you consider Scientology? If so, what is it?
36 months ago: Fredrick, what is "mental superiority". Some would say IQ, but that measure doesn't even touch artists. Was Galileo "mentally superior", or just a happy tinkerer, who put together a couple of new toys, lenses, and out of curiosity looked newly at the heavens?

Scientology's stable datum, its foundational datum, what it rests on and was built from, is simplistic. (my opinion) Too simplistic. It is this. Personal knowledge in one situation. Memorize a multiplication table and you have personal knowledge. But personal understanding is another situation.

Scientology applies this difference to study, to communication, to the mind, and to the spirit. After Scientology, you understand these things better. Before Scientology you might not understand them as well.

Memorized knowledge gets you some results. You memorize a multiplication table and you have developed your own, personal, look up table. When you run into 3 x 9, you can look it up with your own, personalized multiplication table. And the same with dictionary definitions. A word like "roan" comes up while you read. Because you have memorized the meaning of this colorful word, you know what it is about. But, if you used a good dictionary and created a number of sentences for yourself with that word's meaning, then you have understanding. The word is no more (or less) significant than any other word. You can read right along and enjoy the story. I am trying to tell you the difference between personal knowledge and personal understanding. Because this is Scientology's stable, most foundational datum. In my opinion - but don't take my word for it. In March of 1952 Ron Hubbard first used the word in a public lecture and spent an hour defining it. That lecture is called Scientology: Milestone One and is available online, or from any Church of Scientology.
36 months ago: OT and superpowers, whew. Sounds exciting all right. I recognize most of your quotes, of course. No problem. But do you know of a person who is able to use his body's eyes and see a spirit? As far as I know, spirits are invisible. OT is a short way to say, "operating thetan" and thetan is another word for spirit, an individual spirit. Invisible! Can't bee seen with human eyes! So any control lines would also be invisible to human eyes, I guess. Anyway, have fun.
36 months ago: So basically a short summary of this above quote:

"OT and superpowers LOL. Ya i know what they are. Do you know a person who can see a spirit? LOL they are invisible so they can't!!! OT means spirit but sounds cooler OMG. You can't see a OT!! So any superpowers from a OT would be invisible ROFL. LULZ"

So when scientology says that through a high OT you can get cool superpowers like walk threw walls, can't get sick, and make people vanish people away, what they really mean is that you can walk through invisible walls, you are invulnurable to imaginary diseases, and can make imaginary people go away?

Im pretty sure schizophrenic can do all this without scientology.

Yep, thanks Terryeo for explaining how all of the benefits that scientology advertises are fake.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
36 months ago: Terryeo's recent comment claims that Scientology improves your understanding of the mind, the spirit, and communication (if we refer to the endless writings and lectures of LRH we would find that according to him, Scientology also increases your understanding of just about everything else, as well, although those 3 items do have a particular emphasis - but let's add study, responsibility, aberration, ethics, organization, reality, and emotion to the list).

I studied Scientology, and I obtained an tremendous understanding of the crackpot theories of L. Ron Hubbard. There is not much that is learned about anything real. Not much at all. But LRH's advice on how to clean the head of a reel-to-reel tape machine is valid. (Use alcohol on a cotton swab.) The rest is pretty much all fantasy.
36 months ago: Gosh, I feel all glowy 'cause I'm at last understood. WOOT!
THE RONBOT HUNTER
THE RONBOT HUNTER
33 months ago: LRH's own words prove the world's claims against Scientology
"Scientology...is not a religion." - L. Ron Hubbard, CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, 1954, p. 251.
Here is just .oo1 percent of the stuff you are not told.
LRH used God's Natural laws to make slaves of mankind!
"So long as a physiological phenomenon remains the knowledge of a few and is denied to the many it can be utilized to control the many." LRH (from Journal of Scientology Issue 4-G from Oct. 1952)
"This universe has long been looking for new ways to make slaves. Well, we've got some new ways to make slaves here." LRH (from PDC tape lecture #20 "Formative State of Scientology, Definition of Logic", given on 6 Dec 52)
"All men shall be my slaves! LRH
All women shall submit to my charms! LRH
All mankind shall grovel at my feet and not know why!" [L. Ron Hubbard, "Affirmations", late 1940s] Affirmations, exhibits 500-4D, E, F & G. See Church of Scientology v Armstrong, transcript volume 11, p.1886.
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'.
By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not."
L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM". You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them." - L. Ron Hubbard,

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
32 months ago: Isn't The cult of scientology a manifestation of the cult of u.s.a. Economic hit men, fear of terrorism, money money money money and more money etc etc?
32 months ago: Isn't The cult of scientology a manifestation of the cult of USA? Economic hit men, fear of terrorism, fear of psychs, patriatism, fair game policy, make money money money money and more money at what ever cost?
THE RONBOT HUNTER
THE RONBOT HUNTER
32 months ago: Once you understand what a physiological reaction is and know that all the TECH is based upon these discoveries of natural laws, then yes, Scientology has a lot of good things to teach us. But the fraud was that RON claimed he invented these natural laws instead of GOD.

From there frauds pile up on more and more frauds, until there is nothing in $cientology that is not based upon their false claims.

The beatings, harming people, filing false charges on people and the black propaganda of the cult has made many distrust them for good reason.

Today the cult has no credibility other than the movie stars and musicians that they need to save them from ridicule and scorn.

Have pity on the GOD RON for being exposed as a false GOD, when if he told the truth he would have be accepted for sharing physiological reactions with the world.

THE RONBOT HUNTER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Frederick
Frederick
Canada
32 months ago: For Drewinski-- I don't believe Scientology is a reflection of the nature of the USA. I think it is a sad side effect of the freedoms granted in the USA (and other Western nations) couple with an inability to enforce already existing laws. Really though, there are lots of ways to look at why it happened and why it has been able to stick around these past fifty years.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
32 months ago: I agree with Frederick that Scientology, despite the fact that it was invented in America by an American, is not a reflection of the nature of America. Somewhat similar occult practices were devised in England by Aleister Crowley, and religious cultism of many sorts is found all over the world. Many significant cults have originated in such countries as Japan, South Korea, and India. Cultism exploits the weakness of human nature, not just the weakness of Americans.
32 months ago: For ronbot and Frederick, I understand that cults are not exclusive to America however the point is that Scientology play the same game that the American government do (which is owned by corporations) that game is to make money money money make more money profit profit and more profit to the exclusion of everything else including peoples lives. Lie, trick and cheat to the world so long as there is profit. The climate of greed - the fractional money system. Youtube zeitgeist adendem ( I think that's how you spell it). I'm not having a go at Americans but at the disfunctional system. It causes more grief than it's worth. Full stop. Something has to change soon....I might get a visit from the CIA for speaking my mind and be branded an sp...I mean terrorist....whoops, should I say that??? Sorry
THE RONBOT HUNTER
THE RONBOT HUNTER
32 months ago: For Drewinski

You are right about all that you say and know this that the USA is being betrayed soon by the Federal Reserve, they are going to drop the Federal Reserve Note (dollar) and since they own this country and since we are already owned by the International Bankers, they will put us under the Euro.

This will happen in about one year. Mark my words.

As they betrayed us in 1933 with HJR 192, they will do it again.

Scientology's copyrights are no longer own by the cult, but by the feds, that is why I oppose the cult. They will make this the one world religion, since it is a corporate profit based religion-like cult approved by our very own Federal government.

Know this too that the Sovereigns are preparing for this too. But we are not fighting back with Guns (not at my age) but with the PEN.

The revolution is near.

THE RONBOT HUNTER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


Frederick
Frederick
Canada
32 months ago: Drewinski, I think that you are overstating a condition that, sadly, has been front and centre in America recently. I know it is hard for anyone to write a full explanation of their thoughts when limited to a few hundred words, but America is far more than a greedy nation. It's character is multifold. The greedy part isn't always dominant.

In Scientology the greed is always front and centre. But I find Scientology to be multifaceted at well. Sometimes it is a science-fiction story. Sometimes it is a bait and switch racket. Sometime it is a ruthless multinational corporation. Sometimes it is a product hyping itself through famous pitchmen and pitchwomen. Sometimes it is a crackpot version of psychotherapy. Sometimes it even shows the veneer of religion.
32 months ago: Frederick, the USA government (corporations) have been involved in major skull dugery for a long time. It's only in recent times that the skull dugery has reached mind numbingly epic proportions. This skull dugery permeates the rest of world - do what we tell you to do or we'll bring in the hit men. If that doesn't work we'll bring in the army, flatten the place and take your resources. This is all for the mighty $$$$. Kind of how scientology functions. Stand over tactics etc etc. Don't get me wrong, I know other countries are involved at various levels too. I'm also aware of the goodness that America has given the world too : ) I do beleive a line has been crossed and I not sure what will unfold for all of us in the future...peace to all!
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
32 months ago: I'll go with you on the "peace to all" part. American foreign policy and its economic structure is a complicated topic. I am sure that we see things a little bit differently there, but maybe not that differently.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
16 months ago: Since I wrote this, a woman named Nan McLean has put on tape her own experiences with Scientology, about the same time I was involved. I realize that I dodged a bullet but until seeing her statement, I had no idea just how harmful that bullet was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQYBI8xAS...

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