I came across one of L. Ron Hubbard’s gems again recently, and it’s worthy of noting newly.
As you read this, remember, scientologists are not supposed to think about, interpret or alter the words of L. Ron Hubbard. They are to be read, understood and applied. There is a common refrain in scientology: “What do your materials state?” which is the response to any question or confusion about anything Hubbard said or spoke. (The even more common precursor is “What would LRH do?”)
If you cannot repeat what the materials state verbatim (or close to it), you are required to find the word you did not understand, and if that doesn’t solve it, then define every word in the sentence. The steps don’t stop til you have achieved “full duplication” which means you CAN now parrot it back.
“Does this literally mean I should have no concern about running over an enemy with a Mack truck” — the answer in scientology is “What do your materials state.”
P.A.B. No. 53
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11
_____________________________________________________________________
27 May 1955
OWNERSHIP
Personally, if I were an auditor and found my area being muddied up to that extent, I would have a definite feeling, if I permitted it to go on, that I was not doing all I could do to spread Scientology in my area. I would have taken such a screwball out of the running so fast he would have thought he had been hit by a Mack truck, and I don’t mean thought-wise. But then the difference between me and an apathetic auditor is that I fight, and I get things done.
For those who think this might be simply allegorical, I can assure you, this EXACT quote was used to justify the actions of the ORIGINAL “Squirrel Busters.” Dennis Clark and a few friends were sent to “bust up” meetings of David Mayo’s AAC and physically intimidate David Mayo, his staff and public.
It was the justification for use of physical intimidation. Especially when Hubbard specifically states “and I don’t mean thought wise.”
There are many more quotes from Hubbard that direct “handling” of “enemies.” They are not vague meanderings, they are highly detailed directives.
This is the mindset of “good” scientologists that make them dangerous, though they are otherwise decent, normal people. They have been indoctrinated into believing that L. Ron Hubbard’s words are always right, always say exactly what they mean and that following them will lead to a better world, no matter how insane they may seem. They truly believe L. Ron Hubbard had a grander view of the universe and understood things beyond the ability of mere earthlings to understand.
One paragraph from his infamous screed “Keeping Scientology Working” — which is like the 10 Commandments in scientology — says:
We will not speculate here on why this was so [that he came to develop the only workable technology for freeing man] or how I came to rise above the bank [reactive mind]. We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact—the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatization of the bank called “new ideas” would have wiped it out. Supporting this is the fact that Man has never before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve—psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc, ad infinitum.
Lots of “facts” here that are simply assertions, but that was Hubbard’s stock in trade.
But he DID explain a couple of years later in Ron’s Journal 67 (among other places) how it was that he “rose above the bank”. He literally said: “Please remember, I am not from this planet.” And such was his power to have people hang on every word he uttered, they believed this without hesitation or reservation. “Ron” came to earth from some galaxy far, far away to save mankind. He was not like the poor, foolish and hopeless inhabitants of earth. He was homo novis, a superior being in every sense of the word. And while Hubbard (and scientologists to this day) claim “he was just a man” they do NOT think of him this way. It is an “acceptable truth” for the “wogs”. To a scientologists, the word of Hubbard IS the word of God. Ignore it, alter it or fail to understand it at your own peril — fail to buy what he is selling and you may well be doomed to an eternity of cold, shivering blackness. Literally.
Scientologists will deny this (just like they deny you cannot be a scientologist and another religion) and cite Hubbard’s words “I am just a man” but anyone who has ever been a real, dedicated scientologist will confirm that this is true — but only once they are very sure their eternity is NOT doomed by failing to follow what L. Ron Hubbard said.
As a final word, if you have not yet begun watching Wild, Wild Country on Netflix, I recommend it. I have only watched the first 3 episodes. It is a fascinating account of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and his movement. And I find looking at other groups to be informative with regard to the experiences I had with scientology and helpful in gaining perspective. It is also enlightening to note the similarities in groups with infallible spiritual leaders who are treated as demi-gods by their followers.
YEAH… I WAS HELPING DAVID MAYO IN ST. BARBARA
and I was beaten by one of those goons. I’ve never forgotten it…
For those who think this might be simply allegorical, I can assure you, this EXACT quote was used to justify the actions of the ORIGINAL “Squirrel Busters.” Dennis Clark and a few friends were sent to “bust up” meetings of David Mayo’s AAC and physically intimidate David Mayo, his staff and public.
Hi Mike,,
Thankyou for sharing your journey with such openness . I have incredible admiration for your capacity to look within and live with integrity and courage. I have watched every Aftermath program and have regularly read your blog for a couple of years.
This particular post about Wild Wild Country touched me in a particularly personal way as I was a Sannyasin (Orange person) and living on the ranch for the last 6 months of its existence, or when the proverbial “.shit hit the fan.”
It was shocking for me to view the series as I had to acknowledge and take responsibility for the truth that people I had trusted had committed horrible and horrific crimes.It has been both painful and powerful to watch from another perspective.Lots of confusing thoughts and I will admit to being deeply embarrassed that I was one of those crazy orange people.
My reason for becoming a follower of Osho was to meditate to, live and love with totality intensity and passion.
My memory of that period in my life was of joy,laughter, love, friendship and utter bliss.. I left not long after Osho left for India living with friends in Seattle,. I then spent time in the ashram in India before Osho died.
Eventually i returned to Australia and when Osho died I was actually grateful to move on with my life and take it in a new direction
Although i have some wonderful friends from that time I have no desire to search for a guru and have developed a highly sensitive bull shit meter.
Thank you for providing a safe place where i can be open and honest,
P.S Your TV show is compelling,powerful and full of heart
Thank you for joining the discussion here Michelle.
Your view is invaluable and you highlight something I think is important to be understood. Most “cult members” are good people seeking answers for themselves and often wanting to help others. In my view it is the abdication if thinking for yourself and instead relying on a guru that turns good people bad.
Hi Mike ,
Thank you for taking the time to reply and providing a forum where I feel comfortable to contribute to the discussion .
When the commune became aware of Sheelas criminal acts it was truly devastating and shocking as only a very small group around Sheela participated . I was not in any position of responsibility,power or authority. I am grateful that I was never put in situation where my personal ethics were tested and i could remain blissfully ignorant
.What was particularly difficult to comprehend is that Bhagwans teachings were supposed to be all about “Bringing awareness ” Living lovingly and everything that had occurred was the antithesis.of love, life, laughter.
.
Since watching the series (Wild Wild Country) , I have tried to ask myself all the difficult questions.
Such as “Would I have participated if Sheella had put me in that position ?”
To be honest at THAT time I’m not sure what i would have done . I had remembered my time at the ranch with deep affection.as halcyon days.. i had “conveniently” erased the criminal acts from my memory.
What i have hopefully learnt is to understand how dangerous the concept of “for the greater good.” can be
. Its also interesting that people can point the finger and judge others and say “how could you be so stupid to be in a cult ?.” How could you allow yourself to be influenced and commit horrible acts.” When the veil is lifted, one can hopefully gain a deep understanding of how easily influenced we can all be in all aspects of society.
I have observed that you have a heightened sensitivity, awareness and “bullshit meter”.That you question everything, reach inside in order to live with integrity. love and empathy.
Once one has a lived experienced of not listening to ones own truth, of not questioning,or allowing others to influence ones own intrinsic code of ethics it gives you the passion to NEVER LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN !!
For example it would make one wary of participating in a mindless chant at a political rally, it would encourage one to seek the facts before making a decision. It would give you the courage to confront an unethical person in a position of power or authority.
I must say it is beyond belief how cruel and twisted Scientology behaves towards people who decide to leave. From my understanding ( correct me if i am wrong) the reason behind it is because Ron Hubbard said so !!
It must be difficult enough to have to disconnect from family and friends without the added stress of being constantly harassed. I have nothing but deep admiration and respect for the strength and resilience that ex Scientologists show.I know that some cults and religions shun people who leave (J.W) but no other group focuses such hateful abuse. You are all extraordinary amazing people my heart goes out to you.
Much love
Mike brings up an interesting point. While I think most Scientologists can tell when Hubbard’s word should not be interpreted literally, e.g. “RJ-45”, one with a cult mindset, i.e. a “kool-aid drinker”, can interpret Hubbard’s words literally when it serves their purposes, or when they’ve been told they should. Case in point is obviously David Miscavige, but he’s not the only one. Case in point, the CMO executives on the Freewinds. Case in point, the “Squirrel Busters”. It isn’t necessarily about violence, it can be about spending every last dollar on Scientology or working slavishly long hours, it can be about disconnecting from a friend or family member. It is the cult mindset which is dangerous here. In my opinion, it is also the cult mindset which causes religious fanatics to blow themselves up in order to further some imagined “higher purpose”. I think the “Church” of Scientology can fall of the face of the planet, and it eventually will, but there will still remain cults.And Scientology isn’t the only cult in which violence occurs and is accepted as normal (for those who have been indoctrinated into it).
Worthy Oriental Gentleman. Hubbard was only half kidding about RJ-45. You are not familiar enough with the man. If he KNEW he wouldn’t be caught, RJ-45 WOULD have been used on those he was talking about…
Oh yes! “””What would LRH do?”””
Let’s see:
Bounce around as a kid dabbling (dilettantism) in this and that;
Flunk out of college (science);
Depth charge an iron ore deposit off the pacific coast;
Shell a defenseless Mexican island;
Practice black magic with Jack Parsons;
Plead for medical disability through the VA;
Make a living writing scifi stories (honest work at least!);
Screw up his first marriage , including kidnapping;
Remarry as a bigamist, and deny it existed;
Publish DMSMH as ‘scientific’ with case histories (nonexistant);
Abandon Dianetics in 1952;
Bankrupt everyone he contacted;
Reinvent old spiritual practices as Scientology;
Take the credit for others work in making Scientology work;
Abandon personal GPM studies when they go too hot;
Blame all failures of the practice on others;
Declare as SP everyone who got free and stood up to LRH;
Organize the church from some imagined whole track system;
Create the GO/SO/OSA to attack all criticisms/critics;
Became obsessed with money,fame, admiration (not in any particular order);
Reject his gay son;
Abandon wife (#3) to prison;
Went into hiding for the last years of his life;
Die after a stroke (and demon possession(himself));
Leave a HS dropout with no known talents or skills in charge;
And that is just for starters. I’ll pass thank you very much.
The thing is with hubbard it was always smoke and mirrors. He would say one thing then say the complete opposite, then expect you to make sense of it. It was calculated confusion so his ‘followers’ would stop thinking for themselves.
I came across an Orders of the Day from February 15th 1971, quoted over on Tony Ortega’s blog. Hubbard says: “The wogworld tends to impress on people that the individual has no value…” Then, in the same OOD, he says the opposite: “…value to self is all the wide world thinks of. Value to the group is discounted. Yet the whole value of a being is to his group and not to himself at all.”
So in one breathe he says the individual does have value….. then twists it to say the individual only has value to the group and has no value to himself. No wonder the sea org mentality is to treat individuals as though they were dirt, completely without value unless they are giving 1000% of their lives and existence to ‘the group, and even then it’s not enough.
Full quote here:
https://www.villagevoice.com/2012/02/17/scientology-on-the-high-seas-lrh-on-the-wogworld/
In another policy somewhere (I can’t remember which one now, maybe someone here does) hubbard states emphatically that ‘group mentality’ or ‘group think’ is bad and destructive. He writes that ‘group think’ pushes that “the group is all and the individual is nothing…” which is bad. So which is it mr hubbard?? How can all your sheep apply your words 100% to the letter when your words lead them in vicious circles?
Bottom line is, by writing confusing and conflicting policies hubbard gave carte blanche to scientologists to do whatever and still be able to find a policy somewhere to justify their actions.
Well said.
That’s funny, Mike!
As I was reading your post, before you mentioned it, I thought, you should watch “Wild Wild Country”. From what you say I figure you are rooting for the villagers and the Government, I was not. Watched the whole show, though. Tell us what you think, when you did, too.
There is a video on Youtube from OSHO, you or others might enjoy watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9qgK5mvPVA&t=73s. Tells you more of what he and his group was about than the Rolls-Royces…
Marcel Wenger
Marcel – I enjoyed the video and found it similar to nondualism teaching. I was questioning the continuous laughing but the answer was in the comments. Thanks for posting it and I’ll browse some more of his videos.
https://youtu.be/zWkakA7FPCE Thought you might enjoy this gem.
Now this is rather strange Mike. I have just searched through the text of Ron’s Journal 67 and could not find the Hubbard quote you mention of “Please remember, I am not from this planet!”, nor anything similar. Have you made this up then to “electrify” your readers? Now I realize you have graduated from OSA to being their opp term in the press but surely this is taking “journalistic license” a bit too far?
Secondly in my long years on staff I do not recall 1 incident of violence even when trouble makers came into the Org and were violent or potentially violent towards staff. Not even one case of mild man-handling! The only reports I know of is where certain “managers” or “admin types” slapped a few people, including you, around the head, and which should not have occurred. And you could probably count these discrete incidents on 1 or maybe 2 hands over several decades. (Yes, I know or read that COB gave you 50+ slaps.) So to portray all Scientologists as being prone to or ready to commit violence “because Hubbard said so” seems to me to be taking (your) literal understanding rather too far. In fact it is patently ridiculous. (Did you graduate from the Key to Life course you undertook? The course where literal understanding was supposed to go by the boards and be replaced with conceptual understanding.) You might ask “Jesuit George” about the Inquisition and the pedophilia of Catholic priests and then you would have enough gory stories to fill a book – in fact there have been hundreds of books about such.
So all the people below who are crowing and shrieking about the apparent violent nature of Scientologists might take care to learn about the rumor spread by the British in the First World War that the Germans were eating babies, which was believed. This article is about the same level of idiocy – and literal “understanding”. There is much more I could add paragraph for paragraph but that is enough to be getting on with.
I guess it was too much for you to click on the link and listen to old Ron hisself make this statement?
Instead you went to study the transcript to see if you could find a way to imply that Hubbard did not say this. That’s a lot of work. Wouldn’t it have been easier for you to simply state “that is not RJ 67, that is RJ 38”.
But then again, you could also have said “Well, you might have misidentified the number of the RJ, but you could have found the same statement was in the Class 8 lecture of 1 October 68 “Certainty of Standard Tech.”” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFWOQdHubqw)
If you think this is not L. Ron Hubbard, why don’t you just say so directly? “That’s not Hubbard, that is too insane.”?
In all your long years on staff you apparently never had contact with the SquirrelBusters. Lucky for you.
I don’t claim scientologists are generally violent, I have said many times they are not. Nor have I ever stated that the vast majority of scientologists are not good, caring people who believe what they are doing is helping others.
But then again, if you watch the documentary I recommended at the end of the post, you will see the peace, love and happiness Rajneeshees descend into madness — poisoning a town and trying to kill their own (and the woman who admits to doing so is as meek as a mouse) because they believe they are doing so for the greater good because this is what their spiritual leader told them to do. It’s a scary slippery slope that more than one cult has slid down.
Again, thanks for stimulating the conversation.
So happy there is another Aftermath series coming!!!! Also interesting picture of LRH….smoking…aren’t Sci. suppose to be clean living healthy people? Or is it the ole’ “do as I say not as I do”…. also sidebar…..
I have been, and still practice Siddha Yoga (a cult by some peoples standards), after being on staff for a year at one of the Ashrams, with an $800.00/month stipend, small private room, awesome healthy vegetarian meals 3 times a day, I can say wholeheartedly that 25 years have gone by, I’ve never been pressured by anyone to give more money or let go of my family. In fact, our Guru said “if your family is not comfortable with you coming to an Ashram, you must respect that and family always comes first. Always choose your family. It is your dharma and responsibility. You can meditate anywhere, anytime, you don’t need to be anyplace specific. Don’t flaunt your practices in front of people who don’t understand or aren’t comfortable.” The tours and retreats were so fun, and it is a very high feeling, so I get that in CoS, people get enamored and excited…but our Guru stopped traveling, and always talked about NOT having an attachment to the physical form of the Guru. It got too big and intense, and got away from what the whole idea was originally, to chant, meditate, go within. SY has served me well in my personal life. I think any spiritual path, or religion, has some components of cultism. It varies from group to group and leader to leader, where it goes and how much true good it does, in both small and large scales. And there are creeps involved somewhere, in all of them, unfortunately.
Now that’s my kind of guru!
Actually it wasn’t a lot of work – took less than a minute. And I missed seeing the link – didn’t realize there was one.
But why would it be “insane” to state he comes from somewhere else? That was not my point. It was your extra fillip point to the story to try and decry to those who don’t believe in souls, thetans and other planets what Hubbard stated. Of course people who believe they are just a brain or a meat body will regard the statement as wild. Yep, such would be true. Just as equally I could state that those who believe they only live one life and will return to dust on this planet are “dead in the head”, but I am not writing stories trying to prove some far-fetched point about Scientologist’s so-called propensity to potential or actual violence and throwing this in to the pot to support the story.
And even as to the Squirrelbusters, I don’t recall much violence there, even at Marty’s home? Bit of pushing and jostling and personally I think they give Scientology a bad name, and Miscavige should stop their shenanigans, but that’s besides the point. The point was your argument boils down to a few instances of violence which AFAIK was a few slaps around the head, perpetrated by a few screwball Execs on a few people over almost 40 years and then on top of that bolstering your non-story by juxtaposing a cult killing all their members as if to say “this is what could happen! Shock! Horror!” when you know from your knowledge of Scientologists that the juxtaposing is complete nonsense. It is about as nonsensical as saying that you, Leah and Ortega might commit suicide.
I think you are making a mountain out of a rather minuscule mole hill that actually, in comparison to the real violence on this planet and the violence of many other religions, is simply not worth writing a story about (as it has already been done). If David Miscavige slapping a few of his Execs around the head is considered to be “violence” (which nevertheless it is and I am not excusing that) then I think you should get some perspective on things and not try to malign Scientologists based on a blown-up out of all proportion idea – and a literal understanding of the text from Hubbard.
As to the text from Hubbard about the Mack truck, fortunately most Scientologists do not take things literally. It is quite plain to me what he meant and it is not what you are implying. And as for your take on “what do your materials state”, this again is not the way that the phrase is used and it certainly doesn’t go on and on as you state. In fact I have never heard it used in this way. But then it is not often that I have heard anyone asking permission to run someone over with a Mack truck!
So hopefully you now see my points?
The shifting sands of Foolproofism.
You constantly move the goalposts.
I quoted from KSW “We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank” and then said he DID explain this, and gave a citation with a link of one of the lectures where Hubbard said exactly what I quoted. I said this was his explanation.
You then jumped onto this about how this was NOT in “the transcript” and that I was just “trying to electrify people” by claiming Hubbard said something he didnt.
When I referred you BACK to the lecture AND gave you another one, with a link, you now claim this is me “decrying those who don’t believe in souls, thetans and other planets.” Nope. Never said any such thing. I certainly believe in souls and don’t think I am just a “meat body.”
And as for the Squirrel Busters, I didn’t relate this to those who were at Marty’s home. I specifically talked about David Mayo. Once, again, you are shifting the goalposts.
I did not say violence in scientology is comparable to the real violence on this planet. Nor do I think it is.
Are there writings from L. Ron Hubbard that encourage violence and framing critics, even you cannot argue that. ANd THAT was my point. You say scientologists don’t take Hubbard literally. You really ARE a fool if you actually try to sell that concept.
But then again, you apparently want to excuse Miscavige beating people up because it’s “just a few slaps around the head” but cover yourself by saying “you’re not excusing it” — except you just DID.
Foolproof, you are a pretzel locked in a tangled ball of twine, rolling around in a bucket of illogic.
But I love the fact you keep coming back to display your scientology-apologist think here. It’s invaluable.
Ha! The only one who has taken Hubbard literally and is moving the goalposts is you! I notice now “framing critics” has been slyly added into the word pot, swimming about with the lowest level of violence one can imagine – there is more violence in a local downtown bar in 1 evening than has occurred in Scientology in 50 years! Your inflammatory and totally exaggerated story is based on hoping that people understand things literally, as you seem to have done, and reacting with shock/horror, as some have done below.
To the reference, yes very good. I covered that in the last tete-a-tete above, no need to belabor the point in an effort to camouflage the other holes. I didn’t know that was a link – ok now? Jeez! But tell me then, what was the point of your statement that Hubbard said he was from another planet? What were you trying to achieve? You say that you believe that you are an immortal soul so do you then come from another planet or somewhere else or – has “your” immortal soul always lived in Clearwater (even before such existed)?
As to the SquirrelBusters, I had never heard of this phrase before they appeared outside Rathbun’s home. I do not recall or had heard of any connection of the phrase at all with the Mayo group or incident and if there was any violence there (was there? I’d never heard of it and I was out of the Church in the mid 1980s). This would be probably then not even be worth reporting in the Santa Barbara local newspaper. And so now you will say that “I am excusing that”. No, I am not excusing ANY violence it if it occurred (I am sure it did if you say so, well, perhaps?) – but what I do find inexcusable is a story that tries to make out that Scientologists are some sort of frothing at the mouth cult ready to kill all of its members because you have taken Hubbard’s words literally and you hope that others reading will also do so, especially as you have nicely explained it and presented your understanding of it for them for them to feast on.
What I simply disagree with is juxtaposing and comparing a few slaps around the head with a cult killing all of its members, which is blatant hyperbole on your part. Go to a bar in Sydney on a Saturday night and you might see what I mean.
And as for your literal interpretation of Hubbard’s remarks, no Scientologist I know (and I know quite a few) would ever interpret Hubbard’s remarks by rolling up their sleeves and say “put up your dooks!” Or running people over with a Mack truck either! Funny but I never saw any Purchase Orders for Mack trucks when I was present at Financial Planning!
By the way, why did you not allow my reply to Wynski’s comment – he can malign and label me with impunity it seems and yet when I give a perfectly plausible theory (haha!) as to his status this is not allowed? And I thought it was only Scientologists that “labelled” people?
Foolproof, you didn’t duplicate what Mike wrote. Instead, you’ve set up some strawmen that were misduplications of what WAS said, by Mike and LRH, so you could have fun taking pot shots.
BORING!
AND counter-productive, unless your stat is how many people reply to your blather to say you’re an ass. That’s not a stat that leads to any VFP,dude. In a properly-moderated discussion group, you’d be on “time-out” for, at a minimum: adding nothing constructive to the conversation. Being banned from commenting is worth -10 points, if not -100, toward your stats, I’d say; and you’ve earned them IMHO. They’d come off this coming week’s stats, which I daresay you will have to earn/make up in a different forum. You’ve been “outed” here.
PLONK!
Mike, you have my vote to pull Fool’s soapbox out from under him.
I did duplicate what Mike wrote (well, apart from missing the link which I didn’t know about). But that is the problem. Most of the comments on here are fawning idolization and hardly anyone apart from Richard (sorry to tar you with my brush Richard – haha!) and one or two others, ever speaks up and says something worth looking at or dissecting. And I hardly see any “constructive” comments here, only destructive.
You feel YOUR comments are generally “constructive” rather than “destructive”?
Mike, surely you are not implying that 99% of the comments on here are “constructive”? Surely not eh?
Actually I am not concerned with either being destructive or constructive, just in pointing out people’s misconceptions or hyper-inflations of certain aspects of the subject of Scientology. I have never criticized or gainsayed those aspects of the current Church that do actually need correcting, like donations, harsh ethics, Ideal Orgs etc. exactly in the same vein as Debbie Cook’s email. But when people start spouting (and believing!) crap such as Hubbard was Lucifer (does he wear a red halloween Devil suit with trident?) and that one spontaneously combusts by doing “processes” wrong, then I comment, with your ongoing allowance of course. It seems there are a hard core of commenters who nay-say anything I say just because I said it without actually analyzing what I have (actually) said. Perhaps you should direct your comment above to these people and ask them to be somewhat more analytical rather than reactive.
You are the one that brought up constructive and destructive and seemed most concerned about it. Suddenly not? Like I said, the shifting sands of Foolprrof comments. A fascinating study to read the threads.
Well, you’d better read Jere Lull’s comment above where he talks about VFPs and quote “adding nothing constructive to the conversation”. So it seems those shifting sands of mine were based on rock solid granite, or at least those words eh? But like me Mike, sometimes I miss something but then we shouldn’t get nit-picky – should we? Seems the thread was “fascinating” – but not read.
FP —
“…there’s more violence in a local downtown bar in 1 evening than has occurred in $cientology in 50 years..”
Umm, I don’t know what kind of bars you frequent, but that’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.
What you are saying actually is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. You should read the newspapers and local police reports instead of trying to think up some nonsense to gainsay what I say, just because I said it.
Stop minimizing violence, someone getting beaten, punched in the face, by calling it ‘a few slaps around the head’. It’s disgusting.
Well, stop MAXIMIZING and exaggerating violence is my point about the story. It’s disgusting! You are another one who didn’t read what I said and are just lashing out with a witless comment.
Foolproof, I absolutely read what you said. Your use of the phrase ‘a few slaps around the head’ over and over, along with your other comments, is a way of excusing it as not that bad. It’s ridiculous to minimize any amount of violence by saying it’s not that bad or other people do worse. If a church leader hit one person in the church ever and got away with it, THAT’S TOO MUCH. It’s not OK because worse happens in a seedy bar.
I give up! You still aren’t reading what I said. No one has excused violence. Who said it was “OK”? What isn’t “OK” is to make out that Scientologists are running around like Vlad the Impaler on a Saturday night after a few beers. I have said this (argument) several times now and you still can’t grasp what I am saying.
Perhaps it’s because you are like the out of step soldier who keeps asserting it is everyone else who is out of step, not him.
You dig yourself into deeper and deeper holes because you can never admit you were wrong in any way. One of the hallmarks of a good scientologist who always have superior knowledge, intellect and intelligence to any mere wog.
Mike, I am not concerned with being “acceptable” or out of step or part of the herd here. What exactly am I wrong about here? Now you are subtly increasing the gulf and tension deliberately between “commenting folks” by implying that I am being “superior”, which is typical covert ad hominem shifting of attention from the theme. Next you will be juxtaposing Nazi concentration camps with me, sorry, you already did that one.
If you can’t figure the answer to this one out for yourself you truly have the wrong name.
No, (as per usual) actually such items would be included in my list of incidents that I originally stated – a few times in over 50 years. I never said that some (screwball) “Scientologists” had never engaged in violence and I have never excused that but I will stress the point again as either you are deliberately exaggerating my statements or making out I am saying something that I am not, because I have pointed out the hyperbole of your story.
FP —
I’m replying here because there was no reply button at the bottom of your post via the email link even though I refreshed the page a few times.
I don’t “make up” things just to contradict something you’ve said. Come on, really?
Secondly, if you’d said something like “There’s just as much violence that has occurred in bars as there has been in $cientology”, that would have made far more sense. But you suggested that in 50 long years, $cientology has committed less violence than one night at a local bar.
Alright Katherine, I will put it this way: talking of seedy bars: has anyone (in Scientology) ever been stabbed, had a broken bottle pushed into their face or a beer glass crashed over their head, hit with a billiard cue, half kicked to death, sprayed with machine gun bullets, or even been “run over by a Mack truck” in Scientology in the last 50 years?
And please don’ retort with “you are excusing violence”.
Should we add to your list: died on the Introspwction Rundown. Been run off the road trying to escape the Int base? Hunted down and physically forced into a van to be returned to Int base? Set up with phony bomb threats and prosecuted for it? Fake hit and runs? Suicides? Oh I know the answer, those aren’t bar incidents so they don’t count. Because you are being literal in order to try to be right about your defense of violence. You really should watch Wild, Wild Country. Maybe because it’s not about scientology you might be able to get some perspective on cult think.
This should be here, not above:
No, (as per usual) actually such items would be included in my list of incidents that I originally stated – a few times in over 50 years. I never said that some (screwball) “Scientologists” had never engaged in violence and I have never excused that but I will stress the point again that the violence you talking has no comparison with a cult killing all of its members. So either you are deliberately exaggerating my statements or making out I am saying something that I am not, because I have pointed out the hyperbole of your story.
And talking of hyperbole, I also noticed right at the start of this conversation that you had chosen a most unflattering picture of LRH again in order to bolster your point no doubt.
FoolProof, or children locked into a dark mechanical space not meant for the human body where an error can grind the children into mincemeat?
Only REAL criminals excuse gross criminality like you and Richard do.
Wynski like Dr. Goebbels goes on repeating the same message stating I and now Richard are excusing violence when neither of us have said so and in a pathetic attempt to deflect off of what I have otherwise said about the use of hyperbole in the story. Anyone with any sense will read what I said above and ignore these attempts at maligning and deflecting.
FP, I get the overall point you were making. You objected to the suggestion that Scientology is inherently violent or that an LRH policy directly encourages members to be violent. I read it. I get it. My comments were not aimed at your overall argument. Unfortunately, in the process of making your point, you equated a psychopath (DM) regularly punching people in the face, resulting in black eyes, bloody noses, etc as ‘a few slaps around the head’. That is minimizing, which is a form of defending, bad behavior. If you don’t get that, perhaps you should clear the word ‘minimizing’. It serves to belittle the experience of all those who were beaten, not slapped, by DM. That is what was so offensive to me. Please don’t resort to ad hominem attacks by calling my comments witless or saying I didn’t read or get your statement. I did. I am saying you should rethink how you express yourself and how far you go in defending Scientology. If your intention was not to excuse violent behavior, then don’t use language that makes it sound like you are.
Well, actually I had never heard of the bloody noses or black eyes as you state and I am not saying that to “minimize” anything. I had simply never heard of or recall reading of such and I have been out of the Church for decades. In fact the only thing I can remember is Debbie Cook being threatened to have her fingers broken and Mike and others being slapped (?) Yes of course if true (the bloody noses and black eyes) then that is worse than a few slaps around the head. And again no one is excusing it.
On the other hand having grown up with a father who was a boxer and myself being trained in such until I was 18, I tend to regard such things as certainly not being comparable to other (obviously worse) forms of violence, which may of course explain my stance. I am not defending Miscavige’s actions nor the actions of the other, very few, “Scientologists” who have done such things. To my mind they are not “Scientologists” and should be handled accordingly, perhaps by the law depending on the circumstances but certainly by internal justice methods if the offended parties agree. And I grew out of the need to defend self physically when I became a Scientologist, ironically enough. And I remember being aghast when I heard of this behavior.
However, I would never have let such happen to me and would have defended myself and left the Church earlier than I did if it had been attempted, which is probably one of the reasons why people like me were “moved on”, so to speak – so you are speaking to the “converted” in that sense. You are slightly impugning me by saying I am defending “Scientology” but smacking someone in the face is not Scientology. And I am not defending that. You are saying that that is “Scientology”. It’s not – it’s a few maverick dudes who got power-mad.
However, the fact that you choose to interpret my words otherwise and take offense is your problem. My point, and again I am making it, is that the article is expressing the notion that Hubbard gave license to Scientologists to commit violent acts which is a very literal interpretation of his words and the article goes further in implying and emphasizing that this is the case. With my background as a boxer I could easily have taken Hubbard’s words literally but I learnt that this was not the way and had instant conceptual understanding of what he wrote when I read that decades ago, plus others like the 9 foot high board fence policy (you forgot that one Mike – haha!) and thus I didn’t throw a right hook at the HAS when he threatened me once in a situation of internal strife – another haha! (Probably on a Thursday around 2PM! Yet another haha!)
What I am saying is that the article should be expressed less literally and dramatically. Or – to use your words – how far does one go in attacking Scientology? Certainly not by juxtaposing cult members killing each other. And certainly not by literally interpreting Hubbard’s text.
I have not meant to be offensive or belittling – no one likes a smack in the face. And if you find my remarks still to be offensive – well, put up your dooks and we’ll sort it out around the back! Haha!
More No True Scotsman fallacy insanity from the King of insanity, FOOLPROOF.
FP, I didn’t say anything that would back up the statements made in this article, whether LRH policy was meant to be taken literally or meant to encourage violence. I don’t know enough to comment on that one way or the other. My comment was focused on DM’s propensity towards violence and what sounded like a defense of it. I have heard many, many former members who have spoken about DM punching and beating, so much that Shelly had to carry around bandages to patch up people on a regular basis. I doubt that his behavior is representative of every Scientologist (or most), but it’s really unfortunate that a maverick power-mad non-Scientologist just so happens to be the leader of the church. The people he attacks can’t fight back, as they will be stopped by his security thugs and severely punished or declared.
So maybe we agree on something.
Foolproof, speaking of violence and Scientology, here’s an account from the early days when Hubbard was brashly implying violence, and even directly ordering that his followers “tear up” squirrel groups and “harass these persons in any possible way” (HCO Executive Letter of 27 September 1965 Amprinistics). I’ve run across other, similar, ones before, but while looking for something else just happened upon this from the early days of Charles and Ava Berner’s Abilitism:
“Ava told me that someone actually tried to ambush Charles in Los Angeles but when they failed at that, several people broke in and vandalized our new headquarters in Costa Mesa. Scientologist also shot up the sign and did other damage at the Institute’s desert property. All of this then led to long talk with the FBI and after that, things quieted down considerably between Charles and his former guru.” http://www.ancientvedicradio.com/kataobm-ch2.html
And also from a piece citing the orders from Hubbard about what to do with “squirrels”:
“In recent years, a shadowy group of church members dubbed the “Minutemen” crashed meetings of independent Scientologists. They heckled speakers, screamed obscenities and threw eggs. Los Angeles police officers had to be summoned by the owner of a Chinatown restaurant to evict militant Scientologists who disrupted a fund-raising dinner held there by breakaway church members.
The church has denied any direct involvement in the raids. But a former top Scientology official said in a recent court declaration that the harassment campaign was ordered by church executives.” http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-29/news/mn-703_1_church-members
Well, after reading your painstaking effort I don’t actually see any violence being committed unless you conceive throwing a few eggs and shouting to be so! This is exactly proving my point. The Scientologists in this case were doing relatively nothing and yet here you are making out as if these people were running around with machine guns.
There was more violence in the 1 incident at the Youtube office shootings yesterday than in 50 years of Scientology. Yet you haven’t painstakingly written long screeds on Animal Rights websites accusing all activists of violence have you?
Foolproof, for a person who claims to be so well trained in Hubtard tech how could you NOT know that now infamous explanation from the criminal? I knew tons of scamologists who knew that quote from the Class 8 tapes and they had not done OT 3 nor the Class 8 course. It is part of a tape that has been played publicly for DECADES as it is not confidential material.
You are constantly proven to NOT be that knowledgeable about scamology tech even though you falsely claim to have been a highly trained tech staff for years.
THAT is the hallmark of an OSA troll planted to cause trouble.
“…similarities in groups with infallible spiritual leaders who are treated as demi-gods by their followers.”
Exactly why I am so enamored with information about $cn. So much of what I see, is reflections of things I experienced growing up, but coming from a safe direction, I spot the absurdity without the filter from the past culture of belief.
Without that normalizing filter, I find it easier to apply my observations of $cn to my own experience.
There are so many times I both feel sorry for people so deluded, but also identify completely with them from my own experience of belief.
I will often have an “Aha!”, moment reading something about scientology, realizing that was something that had been done to me.
Until you are willing to apply those critical observations to yourself, I believe you stay trapped in that belief system. (Sorry Foolproof, but I think you are absolutely trapped.)
Manipulation, from whatever source, tends to carry the same stink.
Hi Mike, i noticed that Scientology had it’s maiden flight of stupidity on it’s new channel. I also noticed that one man stated he was Hindu and a Scientologist. So what you and several others are saying is true. How can lne be both? I enjoy yours and Leahs program. I also have a question, when one walks into a “church ” of Scientology, are you immediately taken in and audited and then not allowed to leave? Are the children taken away from their parents? Thank you. NJB
Scientology… curious?
… we thought so.
That’s the sort of “acceptable truth” propaganda lies that Scientology tells the public – and lets lower-level members get away, with, initially. What the CofS actually told the IRS is:
“Scientologists are expected to and do become fully devoted to Scientology to the exclusion of other faiths.”
Scientology’s “KSW” policy that is constantly reinforced and drilled into members, brings members around to abandoning “other practices” if they are to make progress on the “bridge” and avoid “ethics” trouble.
Usually one starts with a small introductory course. In my day it was the communication course. No, children are not taken away from their parents but if they fall into the mindset and you want to stop or leave the church, the church will do its best to use that mindset to turn the child against you and that desire to leave or be done.
Also, around the late teens, the church will start to recruit your children to join the Sea Org and you cannot protest that.
Hi, Norma. I’m not Mike, but my observation is that some Ethics Officer or MAA would adjudicate that practicing Hinduism would be “mixing practices”, thus verboten at some point. See also the OT III material which states that humanoid religions are all implants from Incident 2, so they were put there to trap us all in those primitive ways of thinking, keeping us from advancing, and that sort of thing.(*)
(*)Of course, you shouldn’t take my word for it, but check out the Source material, the links to which I’ve misplaced. I believe I found them by looking for “the Fishman papers”.Might have been on xenu.com, now that I think a second.
As to your other Q, PeaceMaker’s answer is pretty good.
For other Questions you might have: Remember, Every Scientologist lies to protect the organization. AND the organization lies to them to protect itself, so never take a Scientology statement at face value.
The development of the violent natures that Hubbard fostered with Scientology certainly needs to be brought to the attention of the public. This post contributes to that end and is thus valuable. Personally I saw Hubbard’s insanity on OT VIII when he rambled and ranted about his total confusion about Jesus, Buddha and space aliens. Hubbard’s son Nibbs really nailed LRons’s defective character in his numerous interviews. Hubbard had him develop the Upper Indoc TR’s to physically handle people. I remember when I was at Flag in the 80’s that Bill Franks was of the violent nature. I will never forget the Sea Org members who circled him and threw punches and backhand chops at me. This was some sort of desperation drill.
The public is apathetic about this violence because we do not see it often. But this violence is centered in Scientology. No wonder Hubbard thought that Jesus was a pedophile.
George, do you still have a copy of the original HCOB that you smuggled off the ship? A scan of the image would be great!
Sad to say I did not smuggle a copy.
It can be found on the net as an “HCOB”. Well, someone has gone to a lot of trouble in formatting it as an “HCOB” albeit with the wrong font (courier) and making out LRH was the typist involved. And if it wasn’t smuggled off the ship then how did someone remember it all word for word? That’s a lot of text to get it exactly right, word for word. Plus all the “processes” involved which is another document. I could go on and on listing contradictions and anomalies but I can’t be bothered anymore. It wasn’t smuggled off the ship (such is impossible (now and since 1983) with confidential materials) and some fool has created it out of spite and mischief.
George, the whole thing is a fake. This whole thing was discussed ad nauseum on Rathbun’s blog years ago. I read the document about 1989 or so and stated then to the person who gave it to me that it was some of the wildest and worst rubbish I had ever seen. Why don’t you knock it on the head with the casting of quite nasty aspersions and worry about your own religion?
Well, I guess I am the only one who remembered it word for word. In 1988, it was presented to me on the Freewinds on OT VIII. The document was not stolen off the ship. It can be found in Class VIII material so I am told. In addition, the document was presented to the courts as part of the OT material and later denied.
Good luck.
Pretty good memory then George? The stated goal of OT8 then I believe was to handle amnesia on the Whole Track (not saying it does). But this looks like the version of OT8 you did, did achieve that result then with your new-found eidetic memory? Quite an “OT ability” then. Would you be prepared to subject that to “scientific testing” as is popular on here? (I am not being serious here.)
As to the document being presented to the court this means nothing if the document was a forgery. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can compose such and “present it to a court”.
And as to it being in the Class 8 materials such again can be inserted “after the fact” and is not proof of anything. I can compose something similar and assert “this was in the Class 8 materials”. And AFAIK, the OT7 Solo NOTs materials are not within the Class 8 materials, so why should the more confidential OT8 bulletin be included?
There is actually a real 1969 OT8 HCOB called “Why Thetans Mock Up”. Did you ever align that HCOB with the one you read? Seems to be totally different.
As you insist on saying that you did read it on the Freewinds, then did it never occur to you that it was a spoof? If this occurred as you say, did you not consider that perhaps Miscavige was doing this to see how far people would go in believing nonsense, for whatever strange reason he may have had for doing so? Not excusing this if so, as that is Miscavige’s affair.
Again, I could go on and on…
Further to my remarks above, the only other explanation I can think of George, is that you were presented with this document on er, April Fool’s Day?
“Foolproof the idiot said, “Well, someone has gone to a lot of trouble in formatting it as an “HCOB” albeit with the wrong font (courier)”.
Hey dipshit, there is no ONE font for an HCOB. It is whatever the typewriter has that is used by the Dir Comm when you type it to burn a stencil to run off copies. Like I did for the Ad Courses supervisors when I was a Director of Communications. I used Times New Roman.
Wynski the microcephalous idiot is now arguing about fonts as if it is important. No doubt he believes the “HCOB” then! I got confused – the typewriter spontaneously combusted when it was being typed! Come on Wyn, let’s have a good laugh – do you really believe this “HCOB”?
No, don’t worry, I know the answer.
Wow moron, (Foolprooof) YOU brought up fonts as important to show that an HCOB wasn’t genuine. Once it was shown that you are clueless about any such procedure you try to say that I thought fonts were important.
Wow, you are batshit crazy
Wyn, you’re not avoiding the question are you? Or have you spontaneously combusted? Fonts? No, no there are far more important outpoints than that but I will leave you to figure those out. You always go on to me about answering questions, well, answer the question: do you think the “OT8 HCOB” is real and valid?
Foolproof, Why do you hate people?, the only person your degrading here is yourself. I hope one day you find out who you really are.
Hate? The only hate here is in the comments that are made here that I mostly reply to. Perhaps you should read the other comments? You are obviously annoyed that I won’t roll over and let people get away with spouting nonsense and – hate! Or should I join in with the hate-festival going on here?
Quiet you, or COB Miscavige will get Tom Cruise down there to beat the shit out of you!
I sometimes wonder if l’il Tom and l’ittler Dave ever grabbed some random sea org victim to punch around for shits and giggles. Miscavige definitely seems like the kind of sociopath thug who would arrange something like that.
Not following what he preached himself but expecting every body else to believe what he was saying is gospel , talk about hypocrisy , and while the lemmings ( followers ) are not thinking straight and blindly follow whatever the ramblings are at the time while being brainwashed into complete submission and at the same time handing over their hard earned to nothing but a bunch of criminals hell bent on making as much money out of the scam as possible under the banner of a church .
Think I have got the Scamology cults number now all though a bit simplistically .
Back in 1986, I was only very recently off staff and considered myself as a pretty hard-core Scientologist.
When Hubbard died, someone close to me told me how he was now continuing his research out in space without a body, and wasn’t this amazing.
After thinking about this for several seconds I decided that it wasn’t.
I assumed the old boy had just kicked the bucket the same as anyone else and at pretty close to the median age for the time.
From my time on staff, I also picked up the idea that Hubbard was a truly dreadful manager and when he made the announcement that he had stepped down from managing the orgs directly I was very happy.
Not everyone swallowed all the nonsense hook, line and sinker, even back in the day.
I drank the kool-aide pretty deeply in the 80s, but more so from the studying of the 50 & 60s period. In retrospect I noticed the contradictions but sort of by passed them, mainly because the auditing seemed to be doing good, both on myself and others I audited. Slowly but surely I finally started scratching my head. First off was the terrible way management treated staff but also how they ignored Hubbard’s words themselves, especially Hubbard! He never applied his own stuff to himself that I ever noticed, he was above his own law and that of us mere mortals.
The whole shooting match is severely flawed from the very beginning. On the one hand in the 50/60s Hubbard said many, many times, “ignore my opinion, because here is THE data – know this!” Yet if you tried to actually apply it you got punished.
The hypocrisy of Hubbard and his organisation is what Scientology is founded and operated upon. From money to money and then even more demand for money became the operating tactic which grew into the monster we see today. To put it simply, fuck them!
It is also ironic as I see that self determinism is the ‘kryptonite’ of Scientology (and the severe enemy of any despotic organisation). Yet self determinism is what Hubbard promised you above all else.
Great post, Yawn. Interesting that via your direct observation Hubbard did not himself apply his own data!
The anonymous nature of the internet has made this pseudo-policy obsolete, as it has with much of the outmoded and dated materials. You ‘literally’ cannot follow through not knowing identity of the critic/enemy. Not only that, but they would be violating the right to free speech, a human right (no contract signed in Scientology can override the US Constitution). Using violence is absolutely out of context of what he said. A verbal-lashing can be so intense that you literally feel like you got hit by a mack truck (remember, Scientologists think that words have mass – again, context).
This was written in the light of the age where this type of speech was common place. Humanity has become less violent than the age that Hubbard lived and wrote. In other words, most everything here is outmoded by the 21st century paradigm.
Also, LRH talked about ‘what is true, is what is true for you’. This invalidates much of what was said. Much like cherry picking bible verses, Scientology is extremely subjective even when quoting Hubbard himself due to his often contradictory nature and talking things out of context to use in a different manner.
I get what you are writing, Mike. It is hard to accept that all of the current followers of david miscavige are so brainwashed as to be incapable of their own thought(s). They are indeed doomed.
At one time we used Scientology to break up and replace automatic thinking with our personal creative thoughts. It was a daily practice to review habits and delete them or upgrade them to work better.
Now it looks like david’s followers are bloody clones to ron and david. What has been created is a group that reads ron’s words, locks the words into place, and then responds as verbatim robots. The Scientology term for that is: REACTIVE MIND.
Per the Tech Dictionary: REACTIVE MIND. 1. ‘ a portion of a person’s mind which works on a totally stimulus response basis, which is not under his volitional control, and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions’. .. Yeah, that seems to fit.
Jim, you are so correct. How can any practicing scientologist in good standing NOT see this absurdity. No deviation from Ron’s words is EXACTLY the definition of REACTIVE MIND.
Thank you Mike …
I agree with this.
So brilliantly analysed and written. No wonder this blog along with others can be called ASC, AntiScnCult and
The Scn-followers just are so envious I believe:-)
Kudos also to all others of course, like Ortega and Shelton etc
“Scientology is “already dead,” says former member Chris Shelton. “They just don’t know it.”
You´re all my new Gurus;-)
Miscavige drove out all the people he knew were smarter than him because he is a little scared child that feels threatened. He is and always will be an infant.
Yep, WhatAreYourCrimes.
davie = Insecurity Much
davie = Tiny Being Syndrome
davie = never grew out of puberty
Enforce and inhibit on full display. Hubbard’s influence showing the world how it pushes it’s own adherents down CDEI scale while convincing themselves that down is really up. Scientology has it’s own destruction well in hand.
“What would LRH do?”
Lie and try to hypnotize himself to believe his own lies.
Hubbard was the opposite of Ghandi who accomplished more than what LRH pretended to do and Ghandi always refused to be violent.
The Hindu philosophy proposes that one should look fo a master that will not demand of you to be like him, but rather will guide you to be yourself.
Maybe what hook many of us to this paranoid leader was the concept of “help another to get better” and “reach higher levels of ability and knowledge for yourself”.
The natural impulse to help is present in many, many people; even now, with the Aftermath and this blog, plus many other actions what is what we’re really doing? Trying to help another to live his own life and depart an oppressive cult.
And LRH sure pushed the ‘help’ button in many of us, but eventualy that is why we came out of Scientology, because it was not helping you, me and many others, rather the contrary.
“The Hindu philosophy proposes that one should look fo a master that will not demand of you to be like him, but rather will guide you to be yourself.”
Sylvia, that’s what I thought Scientology was supposed to be all about. Discovering who you really are, and being who you really are. That’s why I was in, and that’s why I stayed in.
Except that that’s not what its about anymore. If it ever really was.
Well, they had me convinced that that was the path to total freedom. It made sense to me, that each of us were on the path to realizing and becoming and being and acting consistent with who we really are as beings.
It still does, in fact. Maybe I should become a Hindu?
Current news from inside the bubble — The email below is being circulated amongst scientologists about their new cable channel. This is part of the “good works” they think they are defending and therefore justifies the extreme actions declared necessary by Hubbard.
See here some anecdotes what professionals say about the SCIENTOLOGY NETWORK: “A person from CBS (big tv channel in the USA) said that we are making them all look like amateurs. As the quality of filming and effects etc. are a whole new level for the industry. We shoot totally differently and way above any norm and that the only channel that comes somewhat close to us is NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC. The feedback from the industry people is that they can’t believe we launched our own station with all original content. Nobody has ever done that before. Most lease content from other stations and show that for the first year, but not us! We have all of our own content. This is never seen before in the television industry. Also that we have our channel already in 17 languages is impossible. Television channels are translated in maximal 4 languages on this planet.” These are just some reactions of top professionals, but you can see it clearly that we are setting new industry standards, once more!!!
When they have nothing to crow about they invent idiocy to try to “fill the vacuum.” They build expensive ideal orgs that are empty and talk about how many square feet of marble they installed.
17 languages for viewers in the US?? As ridiculous as the marble and 756 miles of wiring at the Gold Base — laid end to end it stretches beyond San Francisco!!! Hip hip hooray.
These pronouncements to the bubble dwellers are textbook examples of propaganda. For example, statements that can’t be verified, e.g., “A person from CBS” and “feedback from the industry people”, are accompanied by irrelevant specifics, e.g., “we have our channel already in 17 languages”.
I would be interesting for someone expert in the analysis of propaganda to break down their pronouncements line by line.
How ironic it is that Scientologists, who supposedly have mastered the art & science of “how to know”, have instead become experts in the creation & consumption of fake news.
Indeed!
Except for the reach of the propaganda into the non-Scientology crowds, the quality and majesty of the plaudits would be seen as masterful and ideal within the eyes of the late-late Dr. Goebbels!
As for breaking down the pronouncements line by line, I wouldn’t want to do that: WAY too many lines, I might die before I’d finish just that citation you’d provided!
“Broadcasting all original content…..most networks lease for the first year…”
Considering the years between their grand opening and actual start of broadcasting, I’d day they just skipped the first few years.
Most networks have to providetheir investors with some income , but not Scientology where overpaying and under performing are usual operating procedures.
This is awesome! Yep, reaching Out Out Out there.
Most don’t believe the propaganda coming from the promo pieces btw – not after you’ve been in and around the block a few times. OSA volunteers and peeps in the ethics doghouse have to write a lot of garbage to get permission to live another day. It’s really those subtle, personal shared moments and stories from those you care about that keep you hooked. Some prop does get through of course. But this level of crazy hyperbole just means it’s going to backfire spectacularly, drastically and much faster than usual. This is good as those who still have survival cells cranking in their engines are hanging on by a thread – will start swimming,
I see this as that eery period when the tsunami causes the tides to go Out Out Out there – right before it rushes in and over it all.
Interesting. Hope you’re right.
A lot of times I have to laugh when I read things about Scientology. Not because of the “sickness” it spreads but by the line of LRH’s policies and the Scientologist!! By laughing, I’m referring to LRH saying he’s from another planet!! Does he ever say which one? Mike and Leah, keep up the good work, it’s a cult, not religion. God and Jesus would NEVER make their people do what they do!
Too bad Mayo didn’t have a stun gun … After Dennis Clark & friends were flat on their back after a nice wallop of electricity, Mayo could have embedded some engramic commands to put into action against OSA, … Ah, the missed opportunities in life … My only regrets in Sci were the MAA heads I didn’t bash against the walls when I should have …
“the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatization of the bank called “new ideas” would have wiped it out.”
Thanks Mike, here is yet another L Ron Hubbard definitional rape of a positive term”
“NEW IDEAS”!!!!!!!!
The term “new ideas” is the bank!
Open minded, reasonable and now new ideas! Hubbard was as serial definitional rapist.
The Netflix series on Rajneesh is a must see. I watched the whole thing in one sitting.
It really shows that when teachers poke out the eyes of reason from their students they become capable of violence.
It’s unsettling to watch.
Joe and Mike, I tried to find the show on Rajneesh on Netflix and it isn’t coming up under his name or under the title Wild, Wild Country. How else can I access this on Netflix?
It’s there and that is the name. Do a google search and you will see it everywhere! Google is your friend Cindy.
Found it easily by a title search today.
Sheila is so charming in part 1. I have to keep reminding myself what she did (or was accused of doing, if you prefer).
Cindy, assuming you’re in Canada, it is not on Netflix in Canada yet, but you can find some interesting YouTube videos on him!
Cindy I typed in Google, “Rajneesh site:netflix.com” and it came up as the 2nd search result.
https://www.netflix.com/title/80145240
On a recommendation from a video Aaron Smith Levin did, I read “The Road to Jonestown” by Jeff Guinn…the parallels between the SO and Jones’ group at its later stages and in Guyana, was unbelievable! I don’t know if you could be in the SO, read that book and not at least have some real questions pop up in your mind…it’s a long read but well worth it. You get a very real picture of how long it can take to boil the frog, what people were thinking when he wanted them to “tell an acceptable truth” etc.
I’ve been an avid Scientology watcher for many years and was a religious studies minor in college, so I have always loved to try and figure out why people believe what they believe…and the last 1-2 years, I have been super interested in cults, undue influence etc…very important topic and people in a cult may be more apt to read about a different cult than their own and make connections, leading to maybe them leaving…a good resource to help people I hope. Anyway, go read the book! It’s great!
Melissa
Yes, it’s fascinating how you can “see” so much when looking at other cults that you didn’t see in your own. Even though I’d already spent a lot of time at the dissection table and layer peeling corner, I could still find some Aha! moment. There’s so many special symbols, procedures, practices, languages, meanings, and that ever present really special mumbo jumbo – all of them are intentionally implanted triggers. Not present in “other” cults so you can see it.
I can watch a cult documentary and LOL – what are they thinking!? and then … oh wait. It’s hilarious to me, but I’ve been out a long time and put in the recovery work. What I have learned the most in the last year is there are so many types of cults. I tend to think of those that are now hitting on a new generation using social media and modern acceptable platforms/concepts more as generic “high control groups”. Again, terminology and language is slippery and evasive with this subject.
I’ll bet you anything the 20 something’s getting sucked in today (not Scn) would assure us they are not in what they would call a cult. I didn’t either when I was in. Cultees wore tie dyes in a farmhouse and heavy drugs, not black ties in office buildings on adrenaline highs.
Melissa – While reading your comment I had a “cognition”. A good friend sometimes questions me why I read and participate on scn blogs since I left scn 35 years ago. He frets I’m still “stuck in scientology”. haha
I now have an explanation. Since I was once in a cult I continue to take an interest in cults as an esoteric study. He’s writing a book about historic architecture, also an esoteric subject.
I’ll keep my cognition to myself since I expect when and if I mention scn again he’ll continue to think I’m stuck. He’s giving me a bit of an education on historic architecture so I’ll stick with that as a topic of conversation among other thing in which we both have an interest.
P. S. From reading scn blogs I’ve gained an overview of MANY different subjects in the field of philosophy, religion, the paranormal and such. He still wouldn’t be interested – not “his thing”.
Glad to help! I’m sure my friends think something similar, “why do you still care what goes on with COS??”…but I think I get so animated, excited and then start talking about other high control groups, they just let me babble!
Melissa
“I’m not from this planet” holly cow! But also I read that n another lecture where he said “please don’t think of me as a God , and I’m just a man” how contradictory.
Yeah, Juan: “Don’t think of me as a god.” is comparable to “Don’t think of a pink elephant…. With dayglo red polish on its toenails.”
LOL,
Yes, I find shows like “Wild, Wild Country” eye-opening as well as the little bit I’ve watched of “The Arrangement.” I find myself in the same mindset as some who have said to me, “How could you get into something like that?” (or in the case of The Arrangement, “That’s absurd.” Oh wait! That actually happened!)
At first, ignorance of the underbelly was easy to maintain. I and many of the young adults that got into this group, were ignorant of the atrocities being inflicted. There was no way that while I was doing this beautiful Communication Course or getting this wonderful counseling called “Life Repair” that aboard the Apollo was a child in a chain locker or in the engine room. No way.
The underbelly has been exposed, thanks to the internet and so many whistleblowers.
david miscavige is now in the position where he has to ENFORCE ignorance of the underbelly, as ruthlessly as possible. Most of those remaining, don’t want to know (because how could they survive without IT) or don’t care (because how could they survive without it).
Enforced ignorance. You nailed it, Mary. And what’s even sadder is that the Still Ins cooperate by enforcing ignorance on THEMSELVES. Miscavige could never succeed in this without their cooperation in ensuring that they themselves remain ignorant. And this is just my theory but I think their mindset is all about the necessity to “be right”. They have a must-have on being right, I think. Beyond sad, actually.
Right. One always has to agree to some extent. In any abusive relationship, if one can actually physically leave and they don’t, to some extent they agreed to remain in for some reason: money, belonging, frienships, family.
“david miscavige is now in the position where he has to ENFORCE ignorance of the underbelly, as ruthlessly as possible. Most of those remaining, don’t want to know (because how could they survive without IT) or don’t care (because how could they survive without it).”
Here is my take on all the current members:
BoiledFrog’ologists are in one of three conditions, and NONE of them are good.
These three conditions are:
1. The members are extremely dimwitted and lazy in these days of the internet, with instant information and social media, or…
2. The members are under extreme duress and held hostage by fear of disconnection, or fear of having their secrets and confessions exposed, or…
3. The members are actually criminal, in aiding and abetting, or even participating in, crimes against humanity.
I can’t see any other explanation to justify membership. All of these conditions are hellish.
I’m watching all those types of docos too Mike, both religious cults, politicals cults, all of them. In between I check Steven Hassan’s list he calls Symptoms of Undue Influence, but I like to call “Signs you Might Be In a Cult”. Found 90% always check out: same.
I would love to see Season 3 of Aftermath take an approach with all cult’s target market in mind. Same as Scientology’s was when successful in reaching recruit bait – the young, the creative, the rebel types. Thought an SNL type of format – using humor to sneak in somber facts – might interest those of short attention spans and used to fast, action packed scenes. I would emphasize inclusion of modern, current cults.
One similarity of cults, getting to your opinion on dangerous Scientologists, is the factor of two types of people in each. The Scientology “believers” are not the dangerous ones imo. It’s those who use Scientology to act out their own dangerous, malicious mental imbalances unchecked, unfettered by law, protected by multibillion dollar legal protection funds. The OSA creepers, their volunteers, the business fraudsters, the sexual predators, the thieves, sadists, lawless cowboys don’t believe in Scientology, in making the world a better place, in helping mankind. Creeprs vs Believers.
It used to be the Believers vastly outnumbered the Criminals in Scientology clothing hiding in their midst. From all reports it sounds like that % is now reversed. As the Corpse Rots. True believers, like myself, read those lines and just knew he was dramatically kidding. Most leave the very moment they realize: OMFG he wasn’t!
Love this comment Hole, keep speaking your truth!
BoiledFrogology really does attract and nurture the most poison humans, doesn’t it.
Sure – where else can crims and pervs go where they get protection from the law, from punishment, get rewarded for some of it, and do whatever they want, some even getting commissions, financial shells, funny money hiding places and more.
At least in the US and That is why the laws need to be adjusted so this crud can’t hide behind a holey collar. Why would they ever leave? Cults like Scientology are a sanctuary for this poison.
Hole, you have a point: If the program is light, even funny, the criminals definitely footbullet themselves if they call the presenters “bitter” again. Of course, if they’re actually funny, the crims will just say the program’s full of Js&Ds
IMO, the show should continue not focussing on the insanity of the teachings, but the criminality of their ACTIONS. For instance, not allowing anyone outside of their bubble to exercise their 1st amendment right of free speech. Anyone questioning SCN( or its seedier ACTIONS) is hateful and abridging their right to believe bizzarre things. As another said the other day, some religions’ beliefs make SCN’s seem rational in comparision. ETs in space ships is nearly mainstream these days, since “Chariots of the Gods?” hit.
Excellent article Mike!
THIS is why the subject itself when used, immediately creates a dangerous cult. It has nothing to do with the formal Co$. The Co$ is simply LRH’s cult materials being USED.
That is why ANY PERSON adhering to the teachings of Hubtard is a dangerous cult memberand eventually becomes a criminal.
Right Wynski. The 1st step in becoming a Scientologist is to believe that because you are smart enough to be studying Scientology that this places you above all educated professionals (no matter who they are).
I take money from the collection basket when they pass it around at church. I can’t help myself.
Scientology made me do it! LOL Scientology turns ANY PERSON into a criminal. That’s a new one. What’s next? They grow fangs and bite people?
Richard, no. Not “ANY PERSON”. But if they see what WE saw, and go into agreement with it; if they observed the outpoints that we observed and unlike us, said, “Ok, this is wrong, but I’m staying. I’ll let myself be convinced, and I’ll convince myself, that its all OK”, then, yes, they are, at the point, on the road to criminality. We saw what was wrong and left. They see, or long ago saw, the same stuff, and didn’t. In my view, that makes them criminal and it makes Co$ complicit in turning once honest people into criminals. Even though, in the end, the choice was THEIRS. And will ALWAYS be theirs. They don’t HAVE to stay. They are not being HELD. They see the wrong, they KNOW, yet they stay. This is criminal behavior. That’s how I see it. Interesting to hear other viewpoints on it though. And lest you think I’m being naive, of course I know all the reasons, which all boil down to fear. Well, plenty of people here thumbed their noses at the threats and their own fear. Why can some people do that and others don’t have it in them? Food for thought 🙂
Well said and true Aqua.
Richard: They might JUST grow fangs and bite someone…. quite possibly one of us SPs who took a big bite out of SCN, spat it out, won’t do THAT again, and warn others against making the same mistake. SCN exercizes its mad-dog school of defense on ANYone who dares question ANYthing about SCN including us SPs who took a big bite out of SCN, spat it out, won’t do THAT again, and warn others against making the same mistake.
I said EVENTUALLY Richard. Weird how most scamologists on this blog have such a hard time understanding their native language. More evidence of the brain damage caused by applying scamology.
The idea that a cult turns people into criminals if they stay long enough (“eventually”) is debatable. It goes into the discussion of whether or not “brainwashing” or “mind control” is a reality. The Rajneesh people were’t trying to kill people, “only” sicken them to rig an election. As with the scn government infiltration they were both criminal activities with limits.
Governments give people a license to kill. Jihadists probably consider themselves soldiers at war. In my opinion if you went into a cult as a criminal you came out as a criminal, or as the Old Boy said, “A cleared criminal is still a criminal.”
I’m not opposed to calling the CoS a criminal organization even though it has evaded criminal prosecution. People operating under the banner of Independent Scientology or Independent Scientologist might or might not be such.
I wonder if entities in the ether engage in such discussions. I listened to a channeling tape one time and “he” said they did. My grandma told me angels helped her and they would help me too if I asked. She was a devout Christian and also gave astrology readings. 🙂
Ahhm, not quite. One of them was convicted of attempted murder for trying to kill the Bhagwan’s doctor… They had a plot to assassinate the Attorney General. Not sure what documentary you saw? Criminal activities with limits? Wow, this is being an apologist taken to the extreme…
And the “old Boy” did not say a cleared criminal is still a criminal, he said a clear cannibal. Scientology claims to make people ethical and moral. It assigns cause to all contra-survival activities to the reactive mind and that is gone when you are Clear.
And finally, scientology has NOT evaded criminal prosecution. L. Ron Hubbard’s wife and 10 others were convicted and sent to prison. Scientology the organization was convicted in Canada. L. Ron Hubbard was convicted of fraud in France.
This is my reference which I read over a year ago along with the bio of Rajneesh. It might be less biased than a media event. The bio details his philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneesh_movement
His philosophy was generally fairly benign. The spirituality of the East meets the materialism of the West. Working to create the “new man”. A counter-culture figure.
The problem with this is as soon as you have a “guru” with followers who hang on his every word, you start get unthinking acts taken for the “good of the Bhagwan” or “the movement” and this descended into madness with attempted murders and poisonings and other insane things done in the name of “religion.”
Not sure what “media event” you are talking about? The documentary? You really should WATCH it before passing judgment. Much of it is told by the people who were there who still view the Bhagwan with great admiration and affection even though they committed insane acts on his behalf. A book can be biased too you know…
Mike – Thank you for the reply. I just looked at the trailer and it’s interesting. I’ll look at the documentary.
Richard you are either stupid beyond belief or insane. Many CoS members were convicted of criminal activity in Fed court. L. Con Hubtard threw his wife to the wolves and she went to Federal prison.
EVERY scamologist of our time period knows this. Therefore, you are either too stupid to be allowed to breed or you are an insane troll.
Just tell us which one of those two it is.
Wynski – Laughter! Take a blood pressure pill.