Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

Scientology; Why all the fuss?

Posted 35 months ago|117 comments|1,088 views
Written by
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
You may have noticed that there has been an upsurge in the controversy surrounding Scientology. Controversy about this organization is nothing new. Created seemingly out of thin air by Author L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology and Dianetics. While not exactly taking the world by storm, it has certainly gotten a lot of attention.

This is unusual to say the least, Scientology is not the first “new religion” nor will it be the last. In its 60 year history is has garnished a reputation for being ruthless and viciously lignite by detractors, life saving by its followers.

What is it exactly? A religion? A business? Some combination of the two? Neither?

I usually feel that the best way to discover what an organization is about is to examine it directly, find out what public face it displays and compare that with its actions. In the case of Scientology the contrasts are striking. Very little is a it seems and there is deception everywhere. In a hall of mirrors, one must be careful when wielding a lamp.

One of the first things I’ve encountered when researching Scientology is a thesis statement often repeated by Scientology mdembers. (What Scientology wants to bring about is…)
"A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights."

This is all well and good but what does it mean? Peace and harmony are good things to be sure and this statement certainly sounds wonderful. But then, when I read it again a couple of things jump out at me that seem not so wonderful.

“A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war.” That’s a charming sentiment. We would all like to live in a world without insanity. In fact, I think most of us do! Other than some of the loonies I encounter on the highway, I don’t see many truly insane people. They seem to have been relegated to our state and local prison system, prison guards must be giving better treatment than trained counselors I suppose.

But more to the point, criminals and the insane have always been around. There have been people, no matter their upbringing or training who simply do not fit in well with society. Some are so antisocial that they need to be removed from society altogether.

I don’t know any way of making all criminals and other malcontents simply vanish though. Scientology does not seem to have an answer either or at least, they have never demonstrated one. Their Criminon program never quite lives up to the hype they give it (and that’s another topic for another day!)

So how do you “cure” a psychotic person or a person with violent tendencies? It’s been demonstrated that Scientology can’t even regulate their own very well. In fact there are persistent rumors that violence (a criminal act) is the preferred method of management from the very highest levels of Scientology on down. Anyone who’s seen Sea Org members sporting black eyes would probably agree (and I have seen them thank you very much.)

"where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights." OK, it’s a nice sentiment too but devoid of substance – and creepy too. Its a very judgmental statement. Where the able can prosper? What about those who, by no fault of their own are not able? The disabled? Are they to be allowed to prosper in a Scientology world? Do dishonest people have fewer rights than honest people? What is a “dishonest person?” Who’s to be the judge in either case? Will we have “Ability and Honesty monitors” going around sanctioning people found wanting? Is it really a good idea to restrict the rights of people based on some arbitrary rule?

One of the threads in Scientology is that “they make the able, more able.” They don’t seem to be interested in helping out truly disabled people and they have no way of dealing with people who have mental aberrations, in fact they don’t seem to acknowledge that such people exist. Homeless people and people with real problems don’t seem to be on their radar at all. “Degraded Beings” they call them, The home of their their Flag land base in Clearwater Florida is full of homeless people, Scientology to my knowledge has never attempted to deal with them and according to some, have actually opposed people who have tried.

Then, in sublime arrogance Scientology focuses on the mental health industry claiming that they cause all mental illness and go on to say that its psychology that is to blame for all the ills of society. They don’t seem to offer any solutions, just the repeated accusations that the mental health industry is evil and must be done away with.

Scientology is a study in contradictions and downright hypocrisy. They claim that they are helping people but, only those who have enough money to be helped. Folks who need help but are not able to "contribute" are ignored as a matter of policy.

Next; Scientology and mental health


EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
35 months ago: Yeah, you're right. The fastener factory where I work has a more sensible mission statement. Of course, the whole plant was involved in writing the mission statement, not just the founder. And the founder isn't a cult leader, just a guy who wants to make an honest buck.
35 months ago: Two thumbs up. Great post. Your analogy of "the statement" is incredible. Never thought about it that way.
35 months ago: A rant for the few by the fewer.

I know that you are motivate as most of us are by a sense of justice but you really are misguided. I don't know how to lead you out of the woods intellectually. It's more a matter of perception. You know a glass half full or empty kind of thing.

If we try to treat each other with compassion even where we don't agree that might be a good place to start.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Hi judyjudyjudy;

It would be helpful if you could tell me how I am misguided. If you feel that I don't have compassion or that I am not communicating my compassion enough, so be it. My motivation Is (I think) just and proper. If it is not I shall change it.

I don't have a problem with civilly disagreeing with people on most any subject. I can communicate on any subject (try me and find out!)

And I have never taken a Scientology course, how does that happen?

xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
35 months ago: Scientology has a very simplistic, black and white view of the world, thanks to the stunted vision of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard. A man of low cunning and immense charm, Hubbard never conceived of the internet that would rise to doom his scurrilous creation, the "church" of Scientology.

His fiction reflects his limited abilities; it is turgid, derivative, and unimaginative.

Scientology reflects the zeitgeist of the 50s; racist, homophobic, paranoid. Indeed, Hubbard's seminal work, 'Dianetics,' first appeared in 'Astounding Tales,' a monthly pulp sci-fi mag.

By understanding the man, you can understand the organization he created. Hubbard made it quite clear that people below a certain level on his "Tone Scale" were the source of all societal problems. For example, people who don't wish to become Scientologists are considered 1.1 on the Tone Scale. Hubbard labeled them 'Suppressive People' and, as such, they have no rights in Hubbard's society. Here's what the man himself had to say about it:

"There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow."

- L. Ron Hubbard, _The Science of Survival_, Book One, p. 157


"The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered."

- L. Ron Hubbard, _The Science of Survival_, p. 157


Sounds a bit like the experiment Adolf Hitler attempted, doesn't it?
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: It's very important to understand that people in Scientology are not bad people. Their program (and programing)is messed up IMO and they have been pulled away and isolated from the world in general.

This is ironic because in my experience, you must take part in any system you wish to change. Scientology teaches that one must remove oneself from society in order to learn Hubbard's doctrine, this is supposed to make a person superior to non Hubbard trained people. What I see is a bunch of people with little knowledge of history, society and their place in it. They have (according to what I've experienced) an almost cartoon like idea of the world we live in. The kids coming out of Scientology schools are the worst! They know how to read and write but they get little else. No history to speak of, little or no science and math.

Their vision narrows down to "advancing Scientology" thinking that will directly benefit society all by itself. W
35 months ago: judyjudyjudy,

Please attempt to explain your position, as one might imagine critics of Scientology aren't very likely to respond to "oh you're just misguided" any more than critics of Catholicism would respond to that if that was the response given when they ask about abuses.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: And yet, judyjudyjudy; you are not asserting exactly what it is I am misguided about. If you cannot relate what it is you are referring I must conclude that either you don't know or do not desire to say.

My position, however is very simple, I desire to communicate. Thanks for asking. :)

Moneen
Moneen
South Africa, Republic of
35 months ago: The lead article above is well written giving a good insight into the words used by Hubbard & into Scientology.
Many of the words written by Hubbard are designed disinformation that glorifies the theoretical purpose of Scientology leaving at the same time many unanswered questions about the actual underlying intentions & practices of Scientology.
The words even if defined a million times don't really state what they mean.
It can be like Goebels promised Nazi Germany everything including freedom & in the end gave them total destruction.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago:
Thank you for saying that Moneen.

I sometimes think that Hubabrd frequently altered the meaning of his language to suit whatever agenda he happened to be forwarding at the time. He was a fiction writer after all and one of the skills one learns by writing fiction is how to justify almost anything.
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
35 months ago: As usual, I have a Hubbard quote about the redefinition of words:

"The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were intended..."

- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 5 October 1971, PR Series 12, "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words"
35 months ago: Judy says -- I know that you are motivate as most of us are by a sense of justice but you really are misguided. I don't know how to lead you out of the woods intellectually. It's more a matter of perception
To which Mecca Anon replies -- Hi judyjudyjudy; It would be helpful if you could tell me how I am misguided.

Ron Hubbard's word are not understood by everyone in the same way. The man made his living with his pen. Therefore he was able to communicate with readers. Yet his Scientology writings are understood by different people to mean different things.

How can this be? Were Hubbard not a writer, and wrote Scientology, then you would expect he might not communicate with everyone.

My opinion is, his words are understood by people of good cheer who have excellent use of language. But are less easily understood by others. I am not saying Xenubarb and Mecca Anon are not of good cheer. I am saying these 2 qualities are both necessary to understand Hubbard's words. This is my opinion. So, when you come to a statement that seems ludicrous, that seems unbelieveable, that doesn't make sense, do something about it. The author has communicated his idea in written words. Find the word that doesn't ring true. Go to a good dictionary. Is that word defined in that dictionary, with a meaning that makes sense there? If not, the author has not communicated. If so, make up some sentences to yourself, using that meaning. Perhaps 5 or 10 or more sentences, until you are comfortable using that word with that meaning.
35 months ago: So your argument is basically that anyone who doesn't like scientology hasn't looked the correct words up in the dictionary?
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
35 months ago: Terryeo,
Your mistake is in making the assumption that we have not read/understood Hubbard's work.

Unfortunately for Hubbard, many of us are critical thinkers and writers as well. And we do understand the man far better than the Scientologists who have simply chosen to accept what he said about himself than looking for themselves and using documentation provided by sources other than LRH.

It doesn't take a dictionary to decode Hubbard. While his sentences tend to be long, rambling, incoherent and convoluted, the ideas he conveys are simplistic in nature once you unravel them.

Of course, if you were to do that, you'd have to find another way to waste all your free time because the truth is glaringly obvious once you start looking critically.
35 months ago: Mecca Anon poses -- What is it exactly? A religion? A business? Some combination of the two? Neither?

A baker might write what he knew about baking cakes. That would be a cake-baking philosophy. Then the baker might start a cake-baking organization, selling cake-baking books and giving cake-baking lessons in a cake-baking academy.

Scientology is, exactly, a philosophy. It is knowledge in an area. The philosophy is written and some of it is recorded voice and a little of it is Hubbard on film. That's Scientology.

That philosophy is disseminated by an organization, the Church of Scientology.

How does the Church run itself, is it a business or is it a charity? -- believe me, it is a charity, but this tends to be a long answer. The USA's tax organization wrapped itself in this question for years. The Internal Revenue Service's investigation was larger, longer, more extensive and more expensive than any in IRS history. The Church of Scientology was found to be a charitable organization.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago:
So Terryeo; my state of mind and my "excellent use of language" have some bearing on how I understand Hubbard's writings? That's a very strange concept!

However, I can say that whenever I read any of Hubbard's writings, I find by context that when he says the word "fact" he really means "my opinion."



Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago:
"
A baker might write what he knew about baking cakes. That would be a cake-baking philosophy. Then the baker might start a cake-baking organization, selling cake-baking books and giving cake-baking lessons in a cake-baking academy. "

That's a very good analogy Terryeo, so how is it that L. Ron Hubbard suddenly whet outside his field and began writing about Psychology? It would be a bit like your baker suddenly writing about repairing automobiles.
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
35 months ago: "Scientology is, exactly, a philosophy. It is knowledge in an area. The philosophy is written and some of it is recorded voice and a little of it is Hubbard on film. That's Scientology. "

It is NOT "knowledge in an area." What it is, is "crap that a pulp fiction hack/college dropout/ drug abuser pulled out of his nethers."

The things in Scientology that are of value were plagiarized. Everything else is just science fiction and other garbage written by a man flying on cocaine with a typewriter loaded with a roll of butcher paper.

Word-clear Con Man. You'll find Hubbard's portrait next to the definition.
35 months ago: Mecca Anon, indeed, this idea that what John Smith writes down and presents to be "fact" is very important. John Smith is convinced he is presenting a "fact". Actually he is presenting his evaluation of information. He presents both the information and his evaluation of that information, if he calls it a "fact".

And this is true for Xenubarb, for me, for you, for anyone who writes anything. We present our personal evaluation of information as part and parcel, we can not, not include some of how we color information in our own mind, when we talk about something we know.

Hubbard too, everyone. He wrote about the mind in early years, he didn't include the brain or other body portions as part of the mind. But addressed his therapy, Dianetics, to the mind without specifying which brain cell is involved in color blindness or stiff knees. Instead he just talked to the guy. And accepted what the guy said as being true and valid for him.

Hubbard first presented what he had found true about the mind to the American Psychiatric Association, and to an American medical organization. But both rejected what he had presented to him. So, he forged his own path because he thought his "facts" were helpful to people. Psychology would treat a "mental disorder" for years. But Hubbard didn't attempt same. He talked to the guy, there were certain things he looked for and talked about and modern auditors do the same. The guy talks back and describes what he knows, what his experience was. And people feel better when they do this.

That's not really psychology, Hubbard forged his own pathway through the minefield of "mental disorders".
35 months ago: Xenubarb wrote: "It is NOT "knowledge in an area." What it is, is "crap that a pulp fiction hack/college dropout/ drug abuser pulled out of his nethers."

The things in Scientology that are of value were plagiarized. Everything else is just science fiction and other garbage written by a man flying on cocaine with a typewriter loaded with a roll of butcher paper.
"

I agree 100%. You took the words right out of my mouth. I applaud you for saying it first. You just made my day!!

All hail Xenubarb!!!
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: "Hubbard first presented what he had found true about the mind to the American Psychiatric Association, and to an American medical organization. But both rejected what he had presented to him."

Actually Terryeo, you are quite mistaken. He sent letters to the Gerontological Society at Baltimore City Hospital, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. His letters were (so the story goes) not received favorably and not surprisingly. I can imagine someone who, after going to school for many years and practicing for many decades getting a letter from Hubbard saying in effect, "I found the cure to all mental health problems - it will revolutionize everything blaa-blaa-blaa!"

Hubbard then presented his ideas in the Editor of the monthly journal "Astounding Science fiction, May 1950." The Science Fiction geeks who read Astounding reacted favorably so, he expanded his essay into a book, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health which he allegedly wrote very quickly, in the space of a few weeks according to some people.

This is not exactly how peer review works.

Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: "Mecca Anon, indeed, this idea that what John Smith writes down and presents to be "fact" is very important. John Smith is convinced he is presenting a "fact". Actually he is presenting his evaluation of information. He presents both the information and his evaluation of that information, if he calls it a "fact".

And this is true for Xenubarb, for me, for you, for anyone who writes anything. We present our personal evaluation of information as part and parcel, we can not, not include some of how we color information in our own mind, when we talk about something we know.

Hubbard too, everyone."

SO Terryeo; I can't for the life of me understand why you would drag John Smith into this. Why not John the Baptist or Muhammad? Other than Hubbard's doctrine of redirecting any conversation that is even slightly critical to Scientology. It really does not add to your argument and I haven't gotten to the concept of Hubbard's slippery idea of "facts,".... not yet anyway.
35 months ago: "He wrote about the mind in early years..."
-Terryeo.

So what? Did he ever study it? Did he find mutiple test subjects spread across various age groups and cultures across the world? Did he use controlled tests with test groups and control groups? Did he use any proven scientific methods?

The answer to the above would be no. Plus, why would we expect ground breaking discoveries about the mind to come from a science fiction writer? Wouldn't new information on the mind come from scientists who actually study it for a living?
thetagal
thetagal
Elma, WA
35 months ago: Terreo--the Church of Scientology purports itself to be a charity. If it is, it is news to me.

Even the charitable actions are done by "volunteers". I can't imagine the COS spending any of their money for charity.

And doing "charity" has been rather new on the scene of the history of that Church. Probably just an attempt to show they earn their religous tax deductible status.

The only thing in policy is that "charity pre-clears" can be given Scientology councelling from students. I know no other policy that shows anything that fits as "charity."





DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: thetagal, I believe the members of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology look down on and will therefore not engage in charity work because scientology teaches that everyone is responsible for their own condition in life and as such people who need or ask for charity are "downstat.".

It follows therefore and I also believe L Ron Hubbard said that charity work rewards people for being "downstat", which is definitely not something the organisation does.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: The teachings of L Ron Hubbard are supposedly core to the organisation calling itself the church of scientology, yet there are those outside the organisation who practice those teachings and interpret them differently.

L Ron Hubbards teachings enshrined in his many writings, policy statements and taped lectures are not unlike the Bible in that people are already interpreting them differently with some interpretations being more extreme than others.

However where as with the Bible, Torah, Koran etc. the more extreme interpretations are by the minority with L Ron Hubbard's teachings the extremists are the ones claiming to be in the majority, to hold the only "true tech" and denying all others; that is the members of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: "thetagal, I believe the members of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology look down on and will therefore not engage in charity work because scientology teaches that everyone is responsible for their own condition in life and as such people who need or ask for charity are "downstat."

Excellent point!

By direct extension that would make the entire Scientology organization downstat, they don't collect fees do they? All moneys paid to them are "voluntary donations" I.E "charity."
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Mecca Anon: "By direct extension that would make the entire Scientology organization downstat, they don't collect fees do they? All moneys paid to them are "voluntary donations" I.E "charity.""

Ah no, you see that's not charity that's erm, well erm, Keep Scientology Working you have to give money to Keep Scientology Working, not because it needs charity oh no, that would be downstat, but you have to keep scientology working you see. Look at all those nice new Ideal Orgs, see that's scientology working. Ideal Orgs are kept working by the members you see, it isn't charity its the members keeping their own Ideal Orgs working you see, although they don't own them of course...
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Sounds like an out-exchange by any other name. Which of course brings us to the original question, is Scientology a Church, A business or some kind of hybrid?
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
35 months ago: I think that you have made a number of excellent points in your rant. The only peculiarity (which may, ironically enough, be the result of a misunderstood word) is your statement that Scientology has acquired a reputation for being viciously "lignite" (which is a type of coal, not known for its viciousness). But that is a minor detail.

It is quite true that an organization which had the power to "make the able more able" would logically also be interested in making the less able or the disabled more able, and there is no apparent reason why only people who are already able would have the capacity to become more able. But you know, even if all the Church of Scientology did was to make the able more able, that would still be worth doing, even if the less able were cruelly neglected. However, the reality is that Scientology doesn't actually improve any ability for anybody, with a single exception, which is, that Scientolgists become very good at self-deception. That is their special ability.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: "Lignite" instead of litigious. That's what I get for using spell checkers.

You bring up a wonderful point, Scientology is one of the few organizations that (IMO) actually instructs people to lie! Not only lie but they institutionally encourage people to lie to themselves. Its so embedded into the system I don't think most people in Scientology even realize it. Then when they run into people who grew up despising self deception they wonder why they get into trouble.
thetagal
thetagal
Elma, WA
35 months ago: That they teach SOME people to lie is true. Only those who are with the part of the group called OSA are taught to lie and drilled on it. Most of the other members aren't even aware of that information. Our government certainly has branches that teach lying. Not a bad thing to know if you have enemies. Terrible to use on one's friends.

Hard to believe that they teach people to lie to themselves though--how far from the Road to Truth have they veered? If it is now embedding in the system, that wasn't what LRH intended.

Freezoner
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Mecca Anon: "Is Scientology a church, A business or some kind of hybrid?"

"Scientology" is a belief system based on the teachings of L Ron Hubbard, a religion if you will - not a church.

The organisation calling itself "the church of scientology", while it purports to be the sole proprietor of L R H Tech and a safe haven in which to practice scientology it is neither and nor is it a church in anything but name.

The organisation calling itself "the church of scientology" is really a very convoluted web of companies set up around the globe that is very efficient at making any money it gets "disappear".

As an organisation the one calling itself the church of scientolohgy is now geared up to acquiring as much money or personal resources as possible from members for as little as possible; it not only benefits from an income from "public" members but also very cheap labour from "staff" members.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
35 months ago: In reply to Freezoner, L. Ron Hubbard's claim that Scientology is the "road to truth" can be compared to the fictional "Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's famous novel "1984". If you are going to set up an organization whose sole purpose is to deceive people, naturally you would give it as deceptive a title as you could.

All of the impressive phenomena of Scientology, which inspire such glowing success stories, are based upon self-deception. People are trained not to invalidate the pictures that come into their minds, so that imaginary incidents are then accepted as real. From vague, meaningless sensations people infer that they have performed miraculous exteriorizations. Trivial thoughts are magnified into life-altering cognitions. And so forth. It's all self-deception. Scientology is not a well-intentioned effort that somehow went astray, it is a deliberate massive fraud that was never intended to be anything else.

35 months ago: It is unfortunate the Freezone doesn't insist on good study technology. If it did, DeanFox, your postings would make more sense.

Religion is an idea in the head of man. Sometimes it is written. Sometimes an organization is charged with the writings, which contain the philosophy, which is about religion. That's how it is with the Church of Scientology. Ron Hubbard entrusted his writings to the Church of Scientology. Entrusted the quality of delivery. The Freezone, if you want it made public, is not any part Scientology, nor the Church of Scientology. If you are a Freezoner, and you wish to join the Church of Scientology, you will find you will have to do an ethics correction list, as your first attempt to understand Scientology accurately
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago:
Freezoner;
"That they teach SOME people to lie is true. Only those who are with the part of the group called OSA are taught to lie and drilled on it. Most of the other members aren't even aware of that information. Our government certainly has branches that teach lying. Not a bad thing to know if you have enemies. Terrible to use on one's friends."

Oh wow, I don't agree with that. The statement "what is true for you is true" is a recipe for recursive self deception or the "self lie." You could never ever do engineering or science based on "what is true for you." This is taking the world on faith and the moment you do that you are likely to get run over at a zebra crossing.

Anyway; lying is certainly done by other institutions, the government, the military, business etc. Sometimes this is a problem and sometimes the benefits clearly outweigh the consequences. For example, any military organization must understand how to deceive an enemy or it will be at a clear disadvantage.

A "religious" organization has little reason to commit itself to the magnitude of lies that we see in organized Scientology. They are not a war with the rest of society - far from it as a matter of fact. Only a relatively open - democratic society would allow an organization like Scientology to exist let alone grow. Scientology has been biting the hand that has fed to for 60 some years now and I believe people are getting fed up with the whole thing.
thetagal
thetagal
Elma, WA
35 months ago: Hi, Mecca. Oh, I see, you have a disagreement with "what's true for you is true for you." You think that is a lie.

"What is true for you is true for you" doesn't mean it is true for the rest of us.

What is true is a matter of viewpoint, how one looks at things.

In counceling it never works to evaluate what the person calls true, and say it is not true. That just doesn't bring about more sanity. A person needs to feel right about his beliefs, even if they are different from yours.

Now it is different in a study situation. There one is agreeing to certain principles. So you can say, hey, you got it wrong, read the materials again, because if you don't get it the way it is written you won't be able to apply it. You are studying boat building, for example, and you think a boat is a train (true for you) you aren't going to get very far.

But in auditing, (spiritual counceling) the approach is different. You simply let the person be right about his ideas,even if they are wacky. Because when a person is allowed to be right he improves, he becomes higher on an emotional tone. As that occurs, his preception of life changes.

So today he avoids green walls because he always feels sick when he sees green walls. That's true for him. You can't say, "oh no, thats not true. Green walls won't hurt you." He'll get defensive, and he will never be able to change his mind.

So "what's true for you is true for you" isn't lies. It is a view that allows change to occur. "Oh, so green walls make you sick? Tell me about it." "Is there another time green walls made you sick?" "What is the earliest time you can recall when green walls made you sick."

So he remembers his childhood measles and the green room he was in. Surprisingly, he regains his ability to confront green walls. Now what is true for him is that green walls are no longer dangerous. His viewpoint changed.




thetagal
thetagal
Elma, WA
35 months ago: Just a note for Terreo:

How do you know that the freezone doesn't have standard study? Have you ever been to a freezone study room?

DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Thetagal, like so many religions before the group who sees themselves as the "founding group" believes only they have the true teachings and anything else is an aberration. This is of course rubbish, indeed more so with respect to Scientology since it is so new that there is relatively little mystery with respect to the source of various documents; of course the organisation calling itself the church of scientology claims only they have the true tech and yet their true tech has gone through numerous revisions since Hubbard dropped his body; indeed the organisation calling itself the church of scientology have engaged in systematic attempts to remove previous versions from circulation. The true original tech therefore lies with the Freezone, who have preserved many of the original Hubbard documents.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo, I am not a Freezoner but what you're saying as a member of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology is simply the story told to you by David Miscavige when he took over, which is not exactly what Hubbard intended...
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Oh and Terryeo, to catch up with something I didn't have time to before going jet skying:

"Freezone doesn't insist on good study technology".

The Freezone don't INSIST on it, rather it is what they do by merely following L Ron Hubbard's teachings on the matter of how to study, word clearing et al. If something has to be insisted on which should be inherent then something is very wrong...

Of course the organisation to which you belong, calling itself the church of scientology, would have a Freezoner do a "ethics correction list" to learn how to understand Scientology properly because not to do so would validate the Freezone.

Everything you claim as Hubbard's intentions is sourced from David Miscavige's orchestrated event announcing the fact L Ron Hubbard had dropped his body. There is not one verifiable document from L Ron Hubbard stating such intentions. Indeed the documents available all show Hubbard intended his Loyal Officers (Pat & Ann Broeker) take over from him. This was in Hubbard's parting message to the organisation, which David Miscavige later claimed was a hoax, cancelled and tried to have expunged. Oddly there was no "real" hat passing message from Hubbard, only David Miscavige's claims. Hubbard was a stickler for such things and would not have left without properly passing on his hat(s).
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
35 months ago: The example which thetagal offers, about a person who has a strange aversion to green walls, and who is helped to remember an incident in his childhood when he was sick in a room with green walls, is just Freudian psychoanalysis, appropriated by L. Ron Hubbard and re-issued with wild exaggerations about its usefulness.

DeanFox makes an excellent point about the death of L. Ron Hubbard, that despite the mythology that the cult has now tried to create, it is obvious that L. Ron Hubbard did not deliberately "drop his body" in order to be able to move on to other planets which also need his help. L. Ron Hubbard failed to make any of the preparations for the orderly transition of power that he obviously would have wanted to make. He did not record any parting statement, even to say goodbye.

Let us also recall that even in the 1950 publication of "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" we were already being told that the human lifespan would be increased by this amazing new technology (although in 1950 it was too early to estiamte exactly how great that increase would be, since the technology hadn't been around long enough); since then there have been, supposedly, a vast series of additional breakthroughs of immense importance, so that the technolgy in 1986, the year of L. Ron Hubbard's death, was vastly more powerful than that of 1950. And of course, L. Ron Hubbard was himself the most spritually advnaced being in the universe, who had obtained the maximum benefit from his own miraculous technology. And with this immense benefit, he then managed to live to the ripe old age of 74, which is slightly less than the average North American male lifespan. In other words, we have an unmistakeable example here of the total lack of results of Scientology. Scientology promises everything and delivers nothing in the real world, only fantasies to which its adherents stubbornly cling.
35 months ago: It amuses me that critics cling to criticism. Some particular point of criticism is addressed. When replied to it becomes trivial in the critic's mind because this other criticism still exits (in the critic's head). Since all criticisms are equally valid, no single datum, however compelling, can dispel any criticism.

Scientology is knowledge about the spirit. But spirits, you see, are invisible. If you accept for even a microsecond, the possibility that you are a spirit and running a human body, data can begin to align, you can begin to see some sense in the idea that knowledge could exist in this area. And that, my friends, is what religion has been about even before Christ walked on Earth.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
35 months ago: No doubt you can align data based upon your belief that you are a spirit who is running a human body, but that doesn't make it true. L. Ron Hubbard devised a vast, complicated science fiction story called Scientology, and you enjoy it so much that you consider it to be factual, and you align your data accordingly. Someday you may find out that Scientology is actually fictitious, and at that time you will discover that much more data can be aligned, with much more useful results than what you were able to obtain by aligning your data in accordance with the dictates of the cult.

I will add that the invisibility of the spirit is not the problem. Science has studied and learned about all sorts of invisible phenomena; the material world is made up of invisibly tiny particles, it contains many invisible force fields (gravity for example), many invisible wavelenths of electromagnetism (radio waves etc.) and yet we have no trouble dealing with these things.

If you would ever like to understand scientific skeptism, you should read "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Erm Terryeo are you trying to use the Chewbacca defence? Sure sounds like it: "Scientology is knowledge about the spirit. But spirits, you see, are invisible. If you accept even for a microsecond, the possibility that you are a spirit and running a human body, data can be aligned...

Chewbacca defence (paraphrased): Chewbacca is a wookie, wookies are from Kitchic. But Chewbacca lived on a planet Endor. Now think about it, that does not make sense...

Okay. I get what you're saying BUT it has no bearing on what is being discussed.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: In this thread you have denied The Freezone practice Scientology. Sure, this is like the Catholics denying that the Protestants practice Catholicism. They both practice Christianity. Except there is only one Scientology and that is the one enshrined in the writings of L Ron Hubbard.

The organisation calling itself the church of scientology no longer practices the teachings of L Ron Hubbard as he wrote it; David Miscavige has since come up with what he said L Ron Hubbard intended. So in an ironic twist The Freezone, who hold to the original texts, actually practice a purer form of Scientology than that which the organisation calling itself the church of scientology now expounds.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Anyway, none of this matters because Scientology is a belief system by virtue of the fact people believe in it and live by its values (at least their interpretation of those values), the real question is what is the organisation calling itself the church of scientology?

For a start it is obviously it is something which aggressively defends what it sees as propretory rights over a belief system. It has frequently attacked groups, such as the Freezone as heretics and has even engaged in litigation against them; not unlike certain other churches did in days gone by, although thankfully burning witches at the stake is forbidden these days. It is an aggressive organisation without tolerance.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: The organisation calling itself the church of scientology has also acted very aggressively against critics. It has: engaged in smear campaigns using sweeping generalisations in an attempt to detract from the messages of the critics; issued quasi-legal threats to critics, obliquely implying they are engaging in illegal activity and it has encouraged members to "confront" critics aggressively and to be verbally and physically abusive - we have the videos.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: The organisation calling itself the church of scientology also perpetually demands money from its members, which is then soaked away in to a myriad of companies across the world. If there is one thing the organisation is very efficient at it is making money disappear, appearing to benefit no one. The organisation has several long running operations which while fairly effective in extracting "donations" from members are remarkably ineffective in practice. These have already been covered but include - Basics for libraries (very few Basics sets make it to the book shelves); Ideal Org drives - (all manner of clever real estate deals go on with these resulting in lots of empty real estate and half or never to be completed projects); IAS membership (must upgrade now); Freewinds courses (reserve yours now no matter where you are on the bridge); ultimate power building (never finishes); Way to Happiness (always need more pamphlets published even though 98% go unread) - as well as all the other services and courses etc. It is a highly structured, well oiled machine constantly applying pressure on members to get more out of them to what: clear the planet.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago:
Terryeo;
"Scientology is knowledge about the spirit. But spirits, you see, are invisible. If you accept for even a microsecond, the possibility that you are a spirit and running a human body, data can begin to align, you can begin to see some sense in the idea that knowledge could exist in this area. And that, my friends, is what religion has been about even before Christ walked on Earth. "

So Scientology is about things that cannot be detected, measured or manipulated? One has to first take the concept of "spirit" as a matter of faith and the rest falls into place?

OK, no problem. My body is a thing that my "mind" or "spirit" - whatever you want to call it tells what to do by sending motor impulses through my central nervous system causing tissue to contract or expand and glands to produce various chemicals. My "mind" is aware of itself but is not visible in any conventional sense.

Why is any of this exotic or special? People have been mulling over this stuff since rocks were soft.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: The organisation calling itself the church of scientology also recruits members in to its staff where upon various psychological devices are used to make them work ever harder for as little as possible in order to recruit and sell services.

It uses knowledge reports so staff report on each other, a mechanism used in fascist totalitarian societies to ensure people police each other; it breeds paranoia and suppresses dissent.

It labels doubt as a crime (lower condition) & uses sec checks and auditing to crush critical thought.

It advocates auditing children who cannot be made to see "reason", such practices have resulted in children as young as 9 having delusions; I've read the reports and how it took such children years to get over it - oh but of course they're apostates so their word doesn't count; another example of the organisation smearing critics. Tries to detract from asking why would anyone have a bad word after leaving by simply saying "well they would say that wouldn't they".
Moneen
Moneen
South Africa, Republic of
35 months ago: is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion"
This advice is not part of how converts to Scientology can themselves become rich.
Is it because that if another religion can be founded it would become competition to Scientology.
Surely the best way to assist followers would be to have them do exactly what their leader advised & did but then Scientology would have no more consumer market. The converts would all be out & about founding their own religions for their own enrichment.
Despite how we can disagree with many things about Hubbard it must be admitted that he took his own advice & did very well through his founded relgion.
Those who inherited control of his religion either honestly or dishonestly their possession is legally enshrined to give them a comfortable existence using the marketting & selling tools that Hubbard left to them.

Moneen
Moneen
South Africa, Republic of
35 months ago: Missing above is " Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man ---- etc
35 months ago: Frankly, Mecca Anon, if you are criticizing Scientology, you are in the wrong. When you take on this one datum, all other data will assume a greater clarity. Then you can go on to help save this sector.

If you deny the fundamental value of Scientology, or follow some 'alternative' belief system, or follow fake Scientology, or so some called science that is not related to the words of L Ron Hubbard or David Miscavige, you are ignoring the one complete and unified system that can save the future of this planet for the next endless trillions of years. You are basically denying that any knowledge exists. You are also denying the possibility that knowledge could exist at all.

This is not bigotry. This is just cold, hard-headed fact. There is no room to be wishy-washy about it.

So, while all your criticism seems very clever, you have missed out on the essential datum.

This being so, you are basically trying to destroy all the good in the world. What should society do with people who try to destroy all the good in the world? This is a rhetorical question because your opinion on it is not important because you have not assimilated the essential datum. The question is a fundamental one, and has already been determined by Scientology.

By the way, Lignite is a type of coal.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Thank you very much Jack; do you have any idea what you sound like to just ordinary wogs?

Jack H Remington;
"By the way, Lignite is a type of coal. "

Yes I know that, I meant litigious as in "viciously litigious" (used in a sentence) The organization known as Scientology is viciously litigious.

Read the entire thread next time please.
35 months ago: Sorry, I didn't mean to ignite the coal dig.
35 months ago: Mecca Anon, you say "do you have any idea what you sound like to just ordinary wogs?"

I'm not sure I know what you're getting at. I don't know what you mean by 'ordinary wogs'. Do you mean SPs, or just ignorant people?
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Sure you do Jack, you know exactly what I mean. Wogs Jack, there are more than six billion of them out there. Seething, hungry for your datum Jack. And SPs. All those SPs. There is no room to be wishy-washy about it. You must shatter suppression Jack.

So far, you are doing a very poor job of it.
35 months ago: The people you are disparaging are future Scientologists, for the most part, Mecca Anon.

And, even if they are not future Scientologists, Scientology is saving this sector of the galaxy for them.

The technology of Scientology is perfectly adapted for shattering suppression.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Great show me Jack! Show me a MoF#$n clear Jack!

All you people need to produce is one person with "has complete recall of everything which has ever happened to him or anything he has ever studied."
Dianetics TMSMH page 228 ISBN 0-88404-269-3

Show me one person that can prove this Jack.

"He is entirely self determined. And his creative imagination is high. He can do swift study of anything within his intellectual capacity, which is inherent, and the study of would be the equivalent to him of a year or two of training when he was "normal.""
Dianetics TMSMH page 228 ISBN 0-88404-269-3

Other than being a butchered paragraph, this makes concise prediction of how a clear should be. Most of the clears I have met don't even come close to this description. In fact, were I to **** them as providers/performers I might say they fall below average so-called normal people. For no other reason than they have all of this Dianetic baggage to carry around which actually impedes their decision making processes and gives them a sense of arrogance that is very difficult to deal with.

Scientology is not saving this sector, it's not even saving itself.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Lol again at Jack's trolling.
Moneen
Moneen
South Africa, Republic of
35 months ago: British Imperialism I think first coined the word wog for those "without God"
It was then rumoured that God was an Englishman.
Scientology to my knowledge does not have a God except Hubbard - Sole Source of his religion.
Scientologists should no longer copy the word used by past outdated British Imperialism but should rather state that a non Scientologist is "without Hubbard"
Maybe thats their good fortune.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
35 months ago: To Jack H Remington: only the fact that you were able to manage a pun about lignite suggests that you have any mind of your own left at all; otherwise you just robotically spout the party line of the cult to which you belong. But congratulations; you still have a small spark of humanity that has not yet been extinguished. Of course, you will never make a joke about Scientology itself; that would be a violation of policy ("Jokers And Degraders").

Meanwhile, while you triumphantly announce that Scientology is "saving this sector of the galaxy" (how impressive!) there isn't the slightest speck of visible evidence that Scientology is saving anything. Better re-check your statistics, Jack!
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: The term "wog" is an offensive slang which has nearly the same meaning as the term "nigger" in the US. Wog is a term used by Scientology members to describe anyone who is not a scientologist.

Jack makes reference to "future" or potential scientlogists, they don't call those wogs though, they call them "raw meat."
35 months ago: You have misunderstanding Mecca Anon, alas. WOG has never been used in Scientology, as far as I know, as an offensive slang term as you have specified. But google it up, find the term's roots and the various ways it has and is used. Hubbared used the term as an acronym for "Worthy Oriental Gentleman" here and there. First of all, the term recognizes the guy, within his own culture and time, is worthy. That is, he isn't a destitute street bum on drugs. He is, within his time and culture, a gentleman. Hubbard used the word, in my opinion, because he wanted to communicate the guy's potential, his level of success. While also communicating that the guy was not educated in Scientology. Some separation of education, background and culture, do you see? Your manner of use is offensive and distasteful. And was never true of Ron Hubbard nor within Scientology.
35 months ago: Ron Hubbard was a man. I would say thank you to him if I could. But until you UNDERSTAND what he wrote and said, you would not share my opinion. He spent his years working to put into print and organization, methods that help individual people to lead richer, fuller lives.

You should develop your own opinion. But Hubbard isn't a god and never said he was a god. He is or was or will be considered by Scientologists as a friend. Because he quite easily have lived a full life from his pen and his writing and exploration and aviation. But chose to live a life that resulted in proven methods of spiritual rehabilitation.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Terryeo;

"You have misunderstanding Mecca Anon, alas. WOG has never been used in Scientology, as far as I know."

That's a flat out lie Terryeo - sorry, a "shore story."

In Hubbard's culture the term wog is always used as a pejorative. It doesn't mean Worthy Oriental Gentleman... sheeze!

I'm sure people don't use that term in public, it would be bad PR, kind of like the term "fair game."
35 months ago: "But chose to live a life that resulted in proven methods of spiritual rehabilitation."

This is complete BS. How can you measure spirit? How do you know spirit even exists? How can you prove a method for something that may or may not exist.

Might as well say, "But chose to live a life that resulted in proven methods of pixie dust rehabilitation."
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo, the etymology of the word WOG is somewhat uncertain I grant you and it also has had at least two separate uses; in Australia "wog" was a colloquialism for illness for a short period around 1940s, although it is also a racist slur there too today.

The acronym definition "Worthy Oriental Gentlemen" is however not the origin of the word, it's considered a "backronym" - the reverse of an acronym where the word evolved first and the acronym was assigned later.

Most dictionaries say wog likely derived from the word Gollywog, first used by the author Florence K. Upton in 1895 as a name for a grotesque black faced doll character in her book: The Adventures of Two Dutch Dolls and a Golliwogg. There followed a series of gollywog books.

Florance made the word up as a name for a toy doll she found which inspired the books, so quite what her inspiration was is uncertain but the most likely contemporary scenario is:

"Golly" was a euphemism for god, a reference in 1775 said: "a sort of jolly kind of oath, or asseveration much in use among our carters, & the lowest people.". Also uttered as an expression of mild surprise or awe.

The word Pollywog was another name for tadpoles that can be traced back to the middle English word polwygle (around 1440); it's a constriction of pol (head) and wiglen (move).

Given the doll had a large floppy head it is possible Florence took her surprise / awe at finding the doll "golly" as a modifier for pollywog - which at the time would have been referenced in the brain as a large headed wriggly thing.

There is also a maritime etymology that has wog derived directly from pollywog, which was used as a reference to sailors first crossing the equator ("slimy pollywog"). aka slimy tadpole.

However given the English usage as a racial slur it is more likely wog was a simple constriction of Gollywog and was used to say, you look like a grotesque black doll.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: The first record of Hubbard using the word WOG was in the Saint Hill Briefing Course-82 6611C29, in which he says a wog is:

"common, everyday garden-variety humanoid"

"He 'is' a body. [He] doesn't know he's there, etc. He isn't there as a spirit at all. He is not operating as a thetan. The term comes from 'Worthy Oriental Gentleman', from the days of the British in Egypt"

Since then the word wog has been used as a term used by members of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology to mean a person who is not a scientologist.

You're correct to say the word is not racist, since most people of Earth are not members of your organisation it has no race base. However regardless of Hubbard's fairly benign definition the word's connotations as used by members of your organisation tend to be rather derogatory anyway because members see themselves as elite. The word is uttered quite a lot by members in a derogatory fashion when faced with protesters: "****ing wogs" etc. having been recorded.

As an aside Hubbard's understanding of the words' etymology was incorrect, although his belief was and still is a popular misconception.


skeptic
skeptic
Canada
35 months ago: The use of the term "wog" in Scientology is part of the trickery that L. Ron Hubbard used to give his followers a false sense of superiority. I would note that while he did indeed define it as an abbreviation for "Worthy Oriental Gentleman" this should be understood to be a sarcasm. It is an exaggerated statement of respect toward people who are not actually respected by the person using the term.

Of course, there are SO many things wrong with Scientology that it is difficult even to catalogue them all; this particular offense is quite minor compared to some.
Moneen
Moneen
South Africa, Republic of
35 months ago: Since having left Scientology I have realized that everything in the context of other religions, politics, psychology, business etc is taken out of these context to be made in the context of Scientology.
It is how the context of Scientology is manufactured by how to coin Scientology axioms this is to alteris the context of other knowledge for the isness of Scientology.
Even OT levels can be seen altering mind parasites written by Wilson during the 60's to accommodate a Scientology context.
Interestingly enough the real family tree of Hubbard is actually Wilson by how his father a Wilson was adopted by a Hubbard.
Hubbard had a very vivid imagination & was very quick to apprehend any knowledge placing this in a Scientology context.
In a Scientology context knowledge taken out of its own context is no longer recognizeable for of its own source of reference especially by how Hubbard had coined his own words & language to disguise these former context.


35 months ago: I just got to laugh. "correcting" the tech, when you don't understand the tech. Woot Woot!
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
35 months ago: I don't think Terryeo even reads these comments.

Word-clear "Since I left Scientology," you numbskull. It suggests that Moneen was, at one time, just as deluded as you are now.
And most likely knows the tech, possibly better than you do.

Woot Woot!
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
35 months ago: Of course Terryeo has to laugh; that is his only recourse when he has no logical or factual basis to refute the criticism of Scientology. Woot woot. We are not impressed.
35 months ago: I've replied several times to specific and personal criticisms. People who have been part of the organization that disseminated the philosophy (read, Part of the Church that disseminates Scientology) know something about Scientology. Because Staff muse study Scientology to do jobs.

I rarely intend to impress with my replies. I would hope to inform, usually. Because understood information is the missing element that prompts criticism. If Moneen used study tech and made an effort she would understand better and then her criticism would have more force because it would be written accurately.

Her latest post above says she thinks that Hubbard took stuff from many sources, worded it cleverly, stuck it together and called that collage, Scientology.
35 months ago: Hubbard begin with Dianetics. His motivation was to help people improve their lives. That was the measure he used until his death in 1986. "Does this process help people improve their lives". -Now I know you're going to think of some silly exception like R2-45 that was never an auditing process and that you don't understand, BUT-

Hubbard took what worked from Dianetics. The thing that worked was understanding. People understood their memory better, they understood what they already know. And that helped people improve their lives. And he called that concept Scientology and applied it further than Dianetics. Instead of a single human lifetime, he applied it to all memory, anytime. And that, in an abbreviated nutshell, is Scientology. That is not a stolen idea. That is a new idea. It is based on the idea that you already KNOW. But if you know more fully, if you UNDERSTAND what you know, you can improve your life.

Critics don't understand that people improve their lives with these methods. Critics don't understand the single parameter Hubbard used which was, "Does this help a person improve their lives". This could be stated, "Is the guy better off after the process". That was Hubbard's guiding element.
35 months ago: How do critics view Scientology, if they don't understand that Hubbard's measure was, "Does this help the guy"? Critics are certain and sure that nothing can help anyone, every. They are sure they can not be helped, that you can not be helped and that mankind can not possibly help his fellow man. This idea is beyond them. The clever ones, like Saddam Hussian, will publicly announce they mean to help. Saddam often said he meant to help the Arab world to unite. His method of "help" included atrocities and suppression, isolating the people he was helping from everyone else. And this is the "help" Iran is giving their people now, to a lesser extreme.

If you help someone, they have a little more freedom than they did before. They can move more freely or have a little more opportunity than before you helped them. Scientology's methods address the mind and spirit. You think more freely and because you do, things appear more possible. You might get a better job or improve your relationships. You might yourself, become more helpful to your family or work. HELP is a cornerstone and there is no magic where I convince you. Like any knowledge, it requires at least some personal effort to understand. And what you do is purely-dee-do up to you, understanding can not be forced. So hey, if you're a critic, well, have a nice day.
Moneen
Moneen
South Africa, Republic of
35 months ago: Obviously the best form of help is how anyone can help themselves but this is usually not possible on this world.
The greatest turnover of any business is how consumers purchase products & services that help them or how they can help themselves with these.
The medical profession is a gigantic help business that the products & services of these including psychiatry must be purchased.
Often help is given as charity when people are in no position to purchase whatever help for themselves.
DIY is help sold by hardware & other such outlets for the consumer market.
Help is the fundamental basis of & for the job & consumer markets.
Religions are part of a help market for who buy into whatever religion.
Our Father Who are in heaven is a consumer prayer.
It is about supplying to needs by a supplier who has the mind to supply products & services to needs for these.
It is how leaders in religion, politics, business have a following & a following can include who supports by purchasing whatever products & services.
The World is one big consumer & job market.
A female labours bringing into life babies born to be educated to labour & to become consumers.
Scientology found its own market & sells how it or how Hubbard devised products such as books & services to sell to its market.
If those who buy into Scientology feel helped by Scientology then that is consumer satisfaction.
I was not totally satisfied with what I purchased of Scientology.
Free market economy is the choice to decide what help a person wants & not FORCED to stay a consumer of one particular supplier despite how the supplier can believe that they have the only HELP that people require.
Anyone if they USE their mind can devise how to help people & can sell their products & or services or give these away as charity.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: Hubbard did state his measure was "does this help a guy?". He instituted writing up one's gains after each course in order to measure this.

This practice does not provide a good measure because the "wins" are never checked for substance or quality. It does however provide reams of propaganda to encourage other people to spend their hard earned cash and sacrifice their time to the organisation, especially since they are taught never to "invalidate" someone's win. This result does not however belie Hubbard's motives.

Critics of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology disagree when it comes to the motives of L Ron Hubbard. Some critics say Hubbard started out with good intentions and then went bad. Some critics say Hubbard was always bad. Some critics say Hubbard was always good and it is David Miscavige that is bad. Oddly I haven't found any critic who claims David Miscavige has ever had good intentions yet; although having analysed the man I believe he is a product of the organisation and perhaps at some point in his childhood believed he would one day rule the world and that this would be to the greater good of the world - a nice thought, if a little misguided.

Although analysing the motives of L Ron Hubbard and indeed David Miscavige is an interesting intellectual exercise, one which I engaged in, it is really moot to the issue of why all the fuss.

The fuss over the organisation calling itself the church of scientology is borne out of the evidence of the damage it has done and continues to do regardless of the motives of the members and especially its leaders past and present.

Motives are moot to results, or to use a cliché the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo again, with respect to your arguments about helping people to better understand, so think more freely and therefore making them better able to improve their lives. These arguments have always made sense.

The problems aren't really with the "nutshell" of scientology - a belief system practised by many people who are no longer part of the organisation and indeed other organisations who have taken L Ron Hubbards' writings to heart, such as The Freezone.

Sure like all belief systems it should be questioned but the real problems are with the "nutshell" of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology, how it employees scientology to indoctrinate and abuse people and the damage caused by the organisation as operated by its leader David Miscavige.

I don't agree with all the tenets of scientology, but if people feel it helps them I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with though is the organisation that claims to be the sole proprietor of L Ron Hubbard's Tech, tech he is quoted as saying should be freely available, namely the one calling itself the church of scientology and what it does as an organisation.
35 months ago: DeanFox -- the "nutshell" of scientology - a belief system practised by many people who are no longer part of the organisation and indeed other organisations who have taken L Ron Hubbards' writings to heart, such as The Freezone.

Scientology is the written word of L. Ron Hubbard. Believe, know, understand or dismiss it, there is no belief to the philosophy. Except, perhaps, he believed in his fellow man.

Freezoners have misunderstood words. This is the corner where your argument runs into a solidity. People argue, religion should be free, all of Hubbard's works should be freely available to everyone, everywhere.

The Church of Scientology is doing a great deal in this direction by accurately printing Hubbard's works. The Church does its own printing now. And its own translating. His works have become available in many languages and donations have been made to major libraries and this effort is continuing. The idea is to get his basic books, 18 basic books, widely disseminated into public libraries. Where they can be read. The Freezone is incapable of this action because the Freezone does not have Hubbard's original work. Therefore it can not print same. And can not legally publish any.

This keeps Hubbard's work "free", free from error, free from misprinting, free from misuse. Done in this manner, Hubbard's work will always be presented as he intended to communicate his work. It was Ron Hubbard himself who charged the Church of Scientology with sole proprietorship.

Both Dianetics and Scientology are subjects that can be misunderstood. Even Wikipedia today insists that "Scientology is a system of beliefs", when it is actually Ron Hubbard's knowledge, put to print.

I think all of Scientology's publications have not been put end to end and measured, while those are extensive, the costs are reasonable.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: stop with symatic arguments, you're not very good at it. "Believe, know, understand or dismiss it, there is no belief to the philosophy." actually makes no sense. You state it is a philosophy, you state you can believe in it therefore it is a belief system.

Freezoners have misunderstood words. How do you know? That's another one of those Catholic V protestant arguments. They believe they have the most original L Ron Hubbard writings and that the writings produced since his death, by David Miscavige, are an aberration. You only know what your organisation tells you. I only know they have a different view. As far as everyone is concerned you both practice Scientology, just different flavours.

The fact you believe in L Ron Hubbard's knowledge makes what L Ron Hubbard knowledge something that is believe in, aka a belief system.

I know you're trying to say "it is all true", "it is all FACT", "I don't BELIEVE I KNOW" but that is common rant to be heard by many ardent BELIEVERS in many different BELIEF SYSTEMS. To an outsider you are a believer in a belief system. You are just like the chistians who KNOW the Bible is TRUE and KNOW that God exists or the suicide bombers who KNOW there are 72 Virgins waiting for them. Get over it and accept that you cannot PROVE anything you say about the spirit, past lives, thetans, etc. You believe it, you have FAITH in L Ron Hubbards knowledge. You shouldn't need proof.

The library scam has already been covered, when I told you about the audit I did of the Australian libraries and challenged you to double check there or any where else for that matter your comment was simply "that's interesting". The aim is to make money from you members by getting you to buy books ostensibly to send to libraries.

DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: The costs are not reasonable at all. Many larger tombs have been produced for much less or sold at similar cost for significant profit. The pricing of the books are comparable with regular reference books, which incorporate a sizeable profit margin. That and the fact the books were produced in house, reducing costs and employing cheap labour, further reducing costs make them quite lucrative.
Moneen
Moneen
South Africa, Republic of
35 months ago: Only a fool never gives credit where credit is due.
Despite no longer being a Scientologist alot of what Hubbard established as know-how helped me in my life.
It helped me to begin my own investigation into my own mind & into life.
I would be a fool if I did not give to Hubbard the credit that is due to him despite being in total disagreement with alot about Scientology especially its totalatarian concepts of control.
skeptic
skeptic
Canada
35 months ago: DeanFox, You have been making many astute and helpful contributions to this discussion, for which you have my appreciation...and also a couple of corrections. In your last two comments you have said "symatic" when you meant semantic, and "tomb" when you meant to say tome.

Of course, when arguing with a person such as Terryeo, we have much more serious problems than getting our spelling right. He is going to dismiss even the most perfectly composed argument, since it will conflict with his "stable data" (i.e., his delusions).
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Gah, thanks Skeptic, I rely on a spell checker too much.

I find terryeo interesting, you are correct of course that he will dismiss all arguments because it conflicts with his stable data.

I'm trying to explain to terryeo why *(s)he thinks as (s)he does and why it is wrong. The biggest issue with that of course is getting him/her to ask why since (s)he is indoctrinated not to. (*Could also be them) See last few posts here: http://rantrave.com/Rant/Scientology-CEO-Outraged-About-Wikipedia.aspx
35 months ago: DeanFox, you say: "You state it is a philosophy, you state you can believe in it therefore it is a belief system."

No, that is not what I said nor what I meant. I have found Scientology useful. Critics, like yourself, are extremely eager to announce that anyone who finds a jot of Scientology useful "believes in the Church of Scientology".

You have misevaluated the significance of a datum. You have then overgeneralized the significance of your misevaluated datum and arrived at, "Scientology is a belief system, Terryeo is one of those believers".

That isn't how it works. If you closely examine the people who have fallen by the wayside, you will find they support your mis-evaluations. While those who are active and continue to improve their lives with Scientology, do not support your mis-evaluations.

Scientology is written knowledge, and has a common subject throughout. That subject is knowledge. and most of the subject addresses "the individual spirit". In the main is it knowledge about individual spirits. The product is a rehabilitated, individual spirit. It arose because when people closely examined their memories, many found memories from early times, much earlier times. Virtually none of it is belief. It is knowledge which you already have, but you examine newly and find better understanding (of your already known knowledge). And all of this statement is beyond what you can use anyway, oh hum. But I tried.
35 months ago: Regarding your reference to a "library scam". It was thousands of books in many languages placed into thousands of libraries. And that effort continues.

But you look at a handful of reports that a few libraries refused the donation, or threw out brand new books. And mis-evaluate that into "scam". It was never a scam, a donation is a donation. And you then overgeneralize your small data sample into "It probably didn't work anywhere".
xenubarb
xenubarb
San Diego, CA
35 months ago: Well, you're part right. Scientologists did BUY sets of books, which were then sent to libraries.

However, if you were to investigate by calling libraries, you'd find that the donated books never made it to the shelves. I dare you to pick ten libraries and call them. Look for yourself. I did that here. I called all the local libraries, and while they had received these unsolicited tomes, NOT ONE LIBRARY put them on the shelves! This is an easy thing you can do.

Go ahead. Find out if I'm overgeneralizing a small data sample. You will be unpleasantly surprised. And here's why.
Go to your local library and find the Scientology book section. See when they were last checked out. I'll bet it was years ago.

I put cards in Scientology books a decade ago. I went down to do it again last November. Amusingly, several of the books still had the old, pre-Anonymous cards in them! Nobody had even looked at those books, and none of them had been checked out! That is why the new push to get books into libraries failed. Nobody wants them.

This is something you can find out for yourself. Suggest you do it instead of parroting the liars at the top of the food chain.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: the few reports which you believe we have are actually quite a lot. Multiple, around 100, people have checked libraries around the world, especially in areas that are supposedly "complete" and found an almost complete absence of the books. That is not just a few libraries without them but pretty much all libraries without them.

We know the organisation is aware of this because they often get the returns; which our research suggest is how roughly 1/2 the rejections are handled.

Why does this make it a scam? Well because at some level the organisation knows the campaign is not achieving the purported aim - getting the books in the libraries, making the tech available etc. But rather than change tactics or revisit the goal of the campaigns the organisation carries on regardless.

The reason it continues is because such campaigns are very good at getting money out of members through donations. In fact books being sent back make this campaign even more efficient at getting money because the stats don't cover returns just ones sent out; hence a set of books sent out twice is two sets sent out which can be charged as such against the donations of members.

When you are reg'd for donations for library books you are told this is to get basics in to libraries around the world so everyone can have access to the tech. This is the "good cause" to which you subscribe and donate to.

While the person reg'ing you and even many people up the chain may believe its all about the "good cause" at some level it will be apparent the aims of the good cause are not nor will they ever be met by the campaign. Allowing this lie to continue in order to keep getting the money in is what makes it a scam.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo. I didn't say you were a "believer in the church of scientology", I said you believed in scientology.

You are a member of the organisation though because you claim the organisation is the only source of scientology teachings, ergo you are associated with them, ergo you are a member of the organisation in that your actions are in some way governed by the organisation by virtue of its teachings.

Belief v knowledge, I feel a rant coming on. Your dogged assertion that scientology is knowledge which you know and therefore is not a belief is a classic logic trap.

True believers have faith that what they believe is right is true, those who think they have knowledge are deluded because they claim to have proof of knowledge they cannot possibly have. The statement that it is knowledge one can gain a better understanding of through study is just another layer on that delusion.

Such delusional people occur in most belief systems to some degree. A christian who says to me I believe in eternal life, an ever lasting soul, the virgin birth, God and the Devil is a believer. A christian who tells me he knows of these things for an irrifutable fact is deluded because such things cannot be proven.

I like the Douglas Adams quote for this, which I paraphrase: "God said, I refuse to prove I exist because to do so would deny faith and without faith I don't exist". It goes on to say that the babel fish proved he exists therefore he doesn't, QED. After which God disappears in a puff of logic.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: you say what you have is knowledge. This is what you have been taught, but in answering the question why I believe you only have two answers: L Ron Hubbard said so and "it works for me".

Christians, sorry guys, can also say "God said so" and "it works for me", but the ones who believe that is sufficient to make what the have "knowledge" are deluded; most christians are well balanced enough to realise they have faith in their belief though rather than knowledge.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: "That isn't how it works. If you closely examine the people who have fallen by the wayside, you will find they support your mis-evaluations. While those who are active and continue to improve their lives with Scientology, do not support your mis-evaluations."

This statement makes a presumption that those in scientology are better off than those out. That their lives are continuing to improve while the lives of those those who have "fallen by the wayside" are not improving.

The people to which you refer not only share what you claim are my mis-evaluations they also testify to making great improvements to their lives having "fallen by the way side".
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: MOneen, there is no doubt that bits of Scientology can help one on a quest for self understanding although they are not essential. How the organisation calling itself the church of scientolgy employees them and the environment which it provides makes these techniques potentially hazardous.

I also credit L Ron Hubbard because he managed to set up the church of scientology, which regardless of motives is pretty impressive.
Moneen
Moneen
South Africa, Republic of
35 months ago: Scientology is designed so converts no longer really think for themselves but think along the lines of the Policies & Tech of Hubbard. Treating totalatarian controls ( a disease of an infected mind ) by producing similar symptoms duplicates how a mind becomes infected by such controls. This is homoeopathis remedy for a mind.
To the extent the mind of Hubbard can be duplicated the entire subject of Scientology can be understood because Hubbard was Scientology.
A Scientologist even if this is frowned on in Scientology must begin thinking for self & getting rid of how Hubbard totally implanted the mind of the convert.
Scientology can contain basic truths that when researched by an own mind are seen to have always been the truths of an own mind & not just the revelations of Hubbard.
Scientology also contains alot of nonsense & formulas for dissention & division despite always trying to show a united front.
Scientology can believe that converts owe it obedience, duty, loyalty & service & that it need not itself return such as mutual respect.
This makes Scientology totally arrogant as a presumption of a divine right to rule of law only paying lip service to democracy.
This can be because Hubbard who was a pathological liar especially with regard to his background had delusions of grandeur underlined by paranoiac concerns.
The idea is not to judge for the sake of scoring points because anyone can be judged but to continue rearching the mind & spirit in many ways as had Hubbard done but from an own original point of view.
Many unsavoury incidents have & continue to occur in Scientology that like all dictatorships these are always denied & covered up with propaganda that satisfies the minds of Scientologists.
Anyway Scientology has its own cross to bear for how it itself has made & continues making its own bed & must lie in it.
35 months ago: Golly Gee Whillikers. There is this subject, KNOWLEDGE. How do you know, how do I know? How can we know better? Hubbard found some methods that earlier people had not found and wrote them down.

One major element has to do with understanding things you already know very well. In fact, a great deal of Scientology method involves you understanding what you already know!
Moneen
Moneen
South Africa, Republic of
35 months ago: Well stated. Understanding things u already know as an own source of reference is not always requiring considered greater sources of reference than self about an own mind & spirit.
Obviously every person is a source of reference & learning from anybody is giving them validation that they in return can give one validation.
The concept of one highest source of reference comes from an idea about one God that suites the vanity of outdated MAN having made such God in his own image as a presumption of a divine right to rule.
A democratic perception would be viewing anybody as a source of reference with valid input by giving answers as solutions to the problems of survival.
Obviously sources of reference exist in subjects of knowledge that require qualifications for these but in a democratic society anybody can have a viewpint as a source of reference about anything.
The mind & spirit is the property of each individual not a patented right with sole rights reserved for any religion or organization or Scientology or Psychiatry.
Each person is their own proprietory limited with sole rights reserved for each person of their mind & spirit.
Only dictators, fascists, communists, kings etc believe that the minds of people are their property.
35 months ago: "There is this subject, KNOWLEDGE"

Thats not a subject; thats what you aquire from understanding subjects.

TECH FAIL.
35 months ago: " Hubbard found some methods that earlier people had not found and wrote them down."

OMG, NEW METHODS!!! LETS START A RELIGION AROUND IT AND GIVE IT LOTS OF MONEY!!! ROFLMAO!!!
35 months ago: "One major element has to do with understanding things you already know very well. "

If you already understand what you know very well, why would you go back and re-understand it.

Thats just a waste of time.

Its like, "I know how to ride a bike. I know, i'll go back and learn how to ride a bike all over again."

Yea, basically that, just f**king stupid.
35 months ago: Yes, if you know how to ride a bicycle, then why would you want to ride a bicycle any better than you already do? Well, if you want to race, perhaps you would want to. Or if you want to perform, to do tricks and so on, then you might want to.

When it comes to very common things, like communication. Scientology's methods are often found helpful. Even though we all talk every day, these methods Hubbard developed, help about understanding communication.
Moneen
Moneen
South Africa, Republic of
35 months ago: Hubbard put in his own context 'understanding communication' by having taken this from "love thy neighbour as thyself" from the context of Jesus.
Love thy neighbour as thyself is affinity, reality & communication.
Anyone a neighbour of another communicates along lines of the reality of who is a neighbour therefore having this attraction of understanding for one another.
Jesus spoke in different context as the people of his time were not of a scientific mind.
Hubbard altered the context to fit in with his Scientology context.
There is nothing wrong with reinventing other sources of reference into an own source of reference.
It gets bad though when Hubbard reinvented a concept of God as himself.
This is how Scientology is oppressive having reinvented Spanish Inquisition & other type of oppressive methods for his Scientology.
Many control freaks seektotalatarian controls with Scientology as did Hubbard reinvent totalatarian controls taken from national socialism & communism for his Scientology.
Take these controls away & allow converts to also contribute as a source of reference would convert Scientology from outdated oppressive political controls to a democratic purpose.
Hubbard was very very very far from absolute despite having been a genius in many context.
35 months ago: "Even though we all talk every day, these methods Hubbard developed, help about understanding communication"

Ha, thats total bullsh**

Growing up I had poor speaking skills and had to take speech therapy.

Guess whose helpful methods weren't used? L Ron Hubbard's that's who.

Sure, LRH might of made these techniques up, but that doesn't mean that they actually work, and calling these techniques "helpful" doesn't actually mean that they are helpful.

Maybe you should research what you're talking about before you make yourself look stupid Terryeo.
35 months ago: It gets bad though when Hubbard reinvented a concept of God as himself. - Hahaha, as a joke that could gain traction.

Ha, thats total bullsh** -- Maybe you should research a dictionary before you make yourself look stupid, Dangle.
Moneen
Moneen
South Africa, Republic of
35 months ago: An insidious concept of help is continuing to bait how converts are being helped whilst at the same time rendering them helpless.
How can converts ever come to help themselves when they are continuing been sold help by Scientology as devised by Hubbard.
Converts continue becoming more helpless whilst staying addicted to the help sold by Scientology as devised by Hubbard.
35 months ago: "Ha, thats total bullsh** -- Maybe you should research a dictionary before you make yourself look stupid, Dangle."

What are you talking about?

What part of what I said is BS?

Please, if study tech is supposed to elevate your communication skills, put it to use and communicate clearly what part of what I said is BS.

How would researching a dictionary help me? To research a dictionary would mean that I wouldn't actually read it, I would just find out about it.

I really don't see how knowing the history of dictionaries would help me make you look worse then you already do, your pretty good at doing it yourself.

Also, a dictionary is just a tool for vocabulary. My argument is one of logic and example. As you can see, while a dictionary is useful, I don't need it in refuting your comments.

Please Terryeo, stop posting angry comments that try to make me look bad but fail and only make you look ignorant.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo, "understanding what you already know". So as an example you know how to speak but by studying it you come to understand it better and so you improve how you speak.

It's another one of those semantic issues, with scientologists taught to think slightly differently so they think it's special and the rest don't get it; being taught this "I never thought of it that way before" way of thinking sets up these semantic issues.

You may say I already know how to talk to people, even though I hide behind my hands and mumble, if I better my understanding through study I will improve. Others would say you don't know how to talk to people and you need to learn how to. In essence the same point is being made, you need to improve how you speak to people, just it's being described from different points of view, the scientology view point and the main stream view point.

Studying David Miscavige it is clear he's been coached in communication. Only thing is he hasn't done the various courses provided by his own organisation. No records exist and unlike Hubbard he doesn't do auditing etc.
I wonder where he learnt his presentation skills. Hmm.
35 months ago: The "upsurge" you point to is probably spelled out by internet statistics. If you go to http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/scientology.org -- and type in for a comparison graph, whyweprotest.net, you'll be able to directly compare present results.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago:
Terryeo;

I can see some clear trends and something that is just short of phenomenal. A small, specialty forum page that runs on volunteers is rivaling a world-wide, highly promoted page with a budget in the hundreds of thousands and has several full time "employees."

"Wow!" is all I can say!
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: yes I know exactly what you were referring to and how to get and compare web site traffic. What I am saying is that it means nothing in real terms, like all the other statistics your organisation comes up with they are so much hot air.

As I said web traffic statistics, like on line polls, are far too easy to fiddle. Such figures are often played with for amusement to "prove" something (we all know it proves nothing which is kind of the joke).

Sometimes such things can be played with for great lulz, like voting Colbert above Xenu for the name of the space stations' new module; this resulted in Colbert giving Xenu and the cult of scientology an amusing mention on US national TV (Colbert Report), with Colbert announcing himself as Scientology's new galactic overlord. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220648/march-04-2009/space-module--colbert---scientology-s-new-galactic-overlord

Then their is voting Rick Astley as best act ever in the MTV European Music Awards.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article5102055.ece

You can believe the web stats but what you must never do is put any stock in them.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: What you need to impress, if you're looking for quality statistics to show growth is to show something like massive increases in staff numbers. Quite simple, count staff in each org, report in every Thursday at 2pm and record. Graph staff number total over time. I know, it's all about the public but you need staff to service the public so....

Another good one would show increases in donations. Quite simple again. All donations (fixed or otherwise) totalled at each org, reported in on Thursdays at 2pm and recorded. Produce graphs showing donations over time per org to show which are doing better than others and how over all progress is doing. Since staff donate their time more than their money then this figure would be an indicator of the increase in the number of public members; although granted 1 Tom Cruise can = $10m lump sum this would simply show as a spike.

Simple figures.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: BTW, with donations especially it is important to show them weekly and monthly to get a good picture. You can also show them year on year, rolling year to date but upward trends are better monitored weekly; Hubbard knew this which is why he instituted the collection and collation of stats on a weekly basis.

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