Another provocative essay from our old friend Terra Cognita.
Love and Compassion in Scientology
Love and compassion have always been given short shrift within the walls of Scientology. In fact, they’re rarely exhibited, almost as if they’re signs of weakness and not worthy of expression.
Shakespeare said, “To be wise and love, Exceeds man’s might.” The church should pay attention.
The Dalai Lama said, “Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive.” Scientology would do well to follow his advice.
Compassion
Showing compassion for the less fortunate is not something Scientologists do. Scientologists are taught that people are responsible for their own condition. That misfortune is the fault of the individual. People “pull it in.” People choose to see evil psychiatrists and get shocked and hooked on drugs.
If stomping on a few toes—or throwing someone under the bus—is what it takes to reach their goals, that is what a good Scientologist will do. Nothing is more important than “going free.”
Scientologists don’t have time to help people who’ve fallen on hard times. Contributing to “downstats” only produces greater downstats—according to LRH. Scientology is for the able.
Per Keeping Scientology Working, “We’re not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn’t cute or something to do for lack of something better. The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman, and child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology. This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance. Don’t muff it now because it seems unpleasant or unsocial…”
And thus, the ends justify the means.
“Love thy neighbor” is a Christian maxim—not a Scientologist’s.
Love: Is it an Emotion?
In Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health, LRH wrote, “It has been discovered that there are three kinds of Love between woman and man: the first is covered under the law of affinity and is the affection with which Mankind holds Mankind; the second is sexual selection and is a true magnetism between partners; the third is compulsive “Love” dictated by nothing more reasonable than aberration.
It’s interesting that Ron included the emotions of hate, resentment, and no-sympathy in his Tone Scale, but not love. Why is hate an emotion and love isn’t? Because he saw love as a “doingness” and not as an emotion? I’m not sure I agree. Of all the emotions on the scale, none adequately express what I feel for my family as does love.
Certainly an increase in communication and reality will raise the level of affinity, but is love no more than a corner of the ARC Triangle? (Affinity, Reality, Communication. Together they equal understanding. An increase or decrease in any corner of the triangle, raises or lowers the other two.) Is love simply a degree of affection? An expression of affinity? Or something more innate, more hardwired? Is our love for our children simply a result of having communicated with them more than the other kids on the block? Even after they become teenagers and know everything and drive us crazy?
Is falling in love merely the attraction of different wave lengths, positives and negatives drawn inexorably together like two star crossed magnets? Or is there something more deep-seated and inherent to the equation? I’d like to believe love is more than a simple matter of physics and is more than an unconscious response of my reactive mind telling me that the object of my desire is a substitute for a long lost ally.
Speaking of Families
There is no bigger example of Scientology’s lack of love and compassion than their policy of disconnection. None. To me, the purpose of religion has always been to answer the basic questions of life. Shunning, ostracism, and ripping apart families were never answers that rang true for me and fit in my universe.
Imagine the brainwashing that must occur to convince a son or daughter to disconnect from their parents—or vice versa—to never communicate with them ever again. There is no justifying or sugar-coating this sick behavior. Scientology denies this conduct, stating that this policy was cancelled years ago. These are complete lies. Mike, and others, have written extensively on this abuse.
Scientology has no compassion for anyone who disagrees with LRH or with the dictates of David Miscavige. Parishioners are either one hundred percent behind them or they’re suppressive and must be banished. Scientology has taken expulsion to a whole new level in recent times.
The church preaches it has all the answers when it comes to human relationships. And yet from what I’ve observed, the divorce rate among Scientologists is huge. I can count the ones who have not been divorced in my town on one hand—and have fingers left over.
Like most other cults, members in Scientology have unreasonable fears of people in the outside world. This fear translates to making less of outsiders and justifies treating them without love, compassion, and all too often, human decency.
Of all the religions, Scientology may be the most heartless and unforgiving.
The Façade
On the surface, staff members can appear happy, friendly, and eager to help their fellow man. Underneath this veneer though, many hold little regard for others beyond their worth as a “stat.” Those with money are highly valued. Those without, need not apply.
Unfortunately, many Scientologists—especially staff—seem to lose their native love and compassion after a year or two inside the church. Many develop ridged, “every man for himself” mentalities in their race up the Bridge. Little is more important than getting onto the next level or getting someone to pay for their next service before Thursday at 2 P.M.
Sea Org members can be particularly cruel and callous. They’ve been indoctrinated to believe nothing is more important than the aims of Scientology—and getting their products. Sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, friends and fellow staff are subordinate considerations. Demonstrating love and compassion is a waste of time and a character flaw. “Only the tigers survive.”
As Regraded Being recently pointed out, elderly Sea Org members are especially susceptible to this cold-blooded behavior and are routinely discarded when they get too old to produce.
Last Words
Love and compassion in Scientology are in short supply. Both are secondary to the goals and purposes of the church. Sadly, neither plays much of a role in “going free.”
Scientology is every Scientologist’s first love. People, not so much.
Still not Declared,
Terra Cognita
P.S Thanks Brian for commenting on this subject in the past.
Can scientologists have good personal relationships. It appears so many things can upset it and the church appears to control it.
Iam a non scientologist and fell for a scientologist. It was really difficult as so many things stood in the way. Thoughts on love and relationships would be helpful for me to understand. Appears only way is you need to be one yourself. The person I liked is doing 0T7. Spends most of his day auditing.
Also seems that if you aren’t fully serving them you could end up being a problem and a trouble source. I can’t imagine how a relationship can work
i dig this. May i recommend the book: “Flunk; Start?” It is written by Sands Hall. She has a very similar experience; but she did join the Cult for some time
I am really missing your and Leahs’ program on A&E!! Your viewers are all hoping for a second powerful season!! I first heard of Scientology in the 70’s from my girlfriend at that time who had asked the “staff” of a “church” for info on Scientology. She said that after finding out she was not interested they continued to seek her out and behave very rudely towards her…I remember thinking she was flakey…now I know bettter. Thank you both….
I agree with Mike..my wife and I became very interested in the Scientology series….so much so that we visited Clearwater on our vacation, just to see the buildings spoke of and the Sea Org members walking around! Quite a fascinating and yet sad journey that Leah and Mike took us on. I particularly liked Mike’s interpretations of the various Scientology terms. But I hope that they continue, to further expose those families hurt by disconnection.
I love this.
I encourage all Never Ins to walk into Orgs and let it be known that they have seen Leah and Mike’s program and ask if anyone there needs help escaping. 🙂
Scn has a whole body of “teck” talking about Promotion and the magic of just putting out promo and how people will come in as a result of it. They brag that even when it’s bad news, it’s good because people come in to see “what it’s all about” when they hear bad stuff and the magic of the teck change their mind and they join up even after hearing “entheta” (bad news)
If more and more “wogs” come in and announce they’ve seen the programs and want to help the poor deluded staff, it would make an impact on the staff hearing. It might even make them curious enough to watch the show.
They are bragging that people are coming in after seeing Scn TV… it’d be so fun to have people coming in all right, but coming in from Aftermath, as opposed to their stupid TV infomercials.
“5 people have come in asking about Aftermath, and none coming in off the SUMP shows”
What do you guys think….? Good idea or bad?
🙂
When I was twelve years old, we were shopping in Portland on our annual holiday trip, carefully herded by our hyper-vigilant elders. Big American cities are dangerous places, full of insanity and degradation. One unfortunate example of such degradation shuffled along the sidewalk in front of us, holding out a hand of cracked skin as he mumbled incoherently. Was he begging? Suddenly he stumbled off the curb and fell into the street. Cars screeched to a halt, honking. He began moaning and thrashing. It was a surreal experience. I had never been so close to madness. (At least, never so close to such an unselfconscious display of madness; Scientology’s madness, of course, is held down deep within.)
Concerned citizens helped him out of the street as our elders – Maryjane and Dale – pushed us back under an awning, seeking an exit from the gathering melee of curious onlookers. The man continued to moan, and finally a word became discernible: water. The kids looked at each other. None of us had water. (This was 1982, when a concept such as bottled water was merely a glimmer in a Frenchman’s eye). But we had hot chocolate. I had already slurped mine down, scalding my tongue and throat in the sweet cascade of hot chocolately goodness. One of the girls in our group, a little girl about ten years old – if only I could remember her name, Christine? – timidly stepped toward the man with her little arm extended, offering him her cup of hot chocolate. Her wide eyes and open face betrayed every ounce of her innocent humanity.
But Maryjane, her face blossoming into an expression of shock and dismay, lurched toward Christine and roughly pulled her back, causing her to drop the paper cup which, in slow motion, crashed upon the pavement and splattered its contents everywhere. Christine began crying, and a swarm of disapproving eyes swiveled upon our group. Even the bum was momentarily distracted from his woes, and we all saw the direct gaze from his eyes: bright, shiny, insane.
When we finally got away from the hubbub, I’ll never forget the conversation between Maryjane and Dale, talking as if the children could not hear every word they said:
“God, that DB made me sick. What a loser.”
“DB’s like that will be the last people we save.”
“Stop crying, Christine. The chocolate wasn’t hot enough to scald you.”
“And remember: never give a Degraded Being anything. They are out-exchange and will never give anything back.”
Vivid.
I always enjoy your stories about Delphi!
As for the homeless roaming the streets in my hometown, they’re treated exactly the same by Scientology staff and public: with no respect, sympathy, or compassion. “They could work if they really wanted to,” is a common refrain.
My support of a scientologist high on the bridge as a non scientologist ended up seeing me a focus in his auditing a lot over the 18 months we were in contact.
Even though he appreciated my support he ceased communication with me. No warning, no care or compassion for me.
I was devasted very upset as I realised this decision may have been made by the church itself. Why because us inferred with him meeting a relationship prospect close to home. I lived a distance away
I cared for him but realised that all I had read was coming true. I had wanted to believe that scientology maybe wasn’t all I had read.
Maybe he will contact me. I think not.
18 months on and off we communicated.
So shocked so sudden.
My grief, my disappointed I can’t describe. It’s been nearly 5 weeks since he text me last.
I still care for him but I realised forces I can’t control and his own choices are now in play and I need to move on and thank him for the amazing journey we had.
Well an update—
he was in touch just over a week ago after not contacting me for four weeks.
Im not in Scientology but I support him the person and what he has chosen as his life path. That support he really values. I realise that now. I did fear the worst which is awful I had to think like that.
He is not a easy person to get to know, very guarded. I have got to know him over a long time.
He has slowly shared with me about his life and what he is willing to share about his own personal journey in Scientology.
I do worry about him but know to judge or criticise will only be met with anger and resistance so I have chosen not to judge. I really thought he wouldnt stay in touch, he has.
I’m creative and different myself, always have walked to a different drum. We share commonalities.
Long term I don’t know if we will remain in touch
I continue my own life and personal journey.
He has mentioned books and courses I have read some.
He doesn’t push me to join. I’m aware if I was in a relationship with him it would be different. We can’t as we live in different parts of the country.
We talk via text and phone.
No happy ending just sadness and confusion. My feelings hardly really given much thought by the scientologist I cared for.
I supported his journey. Distance ended up really saving me really as I had started to consider joining to give us a chance. Also his indifference really in wanting to get to know me I’m now moving on.
Update
I needed to cease communication altogether.
Yes scientologists not only focus on clearing the planet they clear their relationships too. I support my scientologist friend , I always will.
The person he is inside that i got to know that was not the Scientology driven man was so likeable, funny, creative and an imagination to match.
So sad and wrong that Scientology teaches them to suppress caring and suppress emotion.
Us had such a interesting journey together -me as a non scientologist for nearly 2 years- but his lack of empathy and control he has over his emotions- been able to just switch them off has just been too much to bare.
I have again ceased contact. My feeling is it’s for good this time for me.
He was such a lucky man having someone who supported him- the person but he is so heavily indoctinated- so in control of his feelings and very little empathy or compassion. Yes glimpses but so suppressed buried deep down nearly lost altogether.
Iam a writer and he has inspired many of my songs. I will miss him.
I didn’t shut the door but I need to move on and trust I will meet a man that will have those positive traits I found in my scientologist but also has the capacity to care, love and be compassionate.
ThankYou Jane . You shared something very close to Your Heart with Us . It was helpful to listen and try to understand. We a collectively share Your loss. Kind regards Stephen
Dear Jane; As someone who was fooled; wronged & almost destroyed by this cult through my 27 year relationship with the man I loved; bless you and thank G-d that you did not waste your life as I have wasted mine.
Thanks so much for replying. I was fortunate I guess in the fact we lived in different states. They are so convinced and are so convincing charming and seductive in the way they present Scientology.
I am educated however curious. He is high on the bridge so now his choices for a relationship are limited. I knew in the end I couldn’t join. He never asked but I knew just recently us had no chance to go anywhere unless I did.
I wonder really if he wants a relationship- maybe only if its directly benefiting scientology.
The boy who I glimpsed behind the man – fun and spontaneous appears forever lost.
I want him to come with me in my mind but he isnt going to-maybe we will meet in another time and space.
My imagination takes me there. I have a song about that. How you can do anything go anywhere- there are no rules there.
Yes I’m caring expressive emotional, the irony of that.
I felt him drawn in many ways to me because i have those traits he is suppressing and running away from himself Maybe you can’t really take the human side our of someone or maybe you can.
Love, like other topics in Scn, is something to be “analyzed” and “understood”; it gets a clinical treatment; mystery and unknowns are undesirable; only “ultimate” truth will do.
The Second Dynamic is a “family unit”; “Mom” and “Dad” are hats that you wear. Your child is an ancient thetan living in a body that you made.
Taking this approach to the subject, things like romance, infatuation, or unconditional love are unpredictable and difficult to quantify or qualify, they just don’t fit nicely into Hubbard’s Second Dynamic paradigm, and are thereby discounted.
Uncomfortable moments in scientology:
1: having a member of the opposite sex come up to you and say brightly, “HI! I’m getting out of non-existence on the 2D, so just want to make myself known…”
or having said person come up and (shudder) HAND you a paper with their N/E formula on it ……..
2. having to keep a TR 0 face while someone gushes to you about how they’re “doing a 2D ADMIN SCALE and are basing their next 2D choice on finding someone with matching scales….
OMG, Secretfornow, I was going to ask if this really happened to you, but then sadly shook my head… only in Scn.
Gee, Secretfornow, what a loving gesture!
Right statpush. The parading of a sociopath. Compassion, caring, love for others are foreign concepts for sociopaths science has now discovered
Typo: “Paradigm of a sociopath.”
Update Jane 29th June 2019
Yes I reached out after 3 months of no contact.
After he said it didn’t work for him staying in touch with me, he is trying to finish 0T7. He is 64 years old.
I guess i though he might just text back say hello ask how I’ve been. Nothing. No text back.
I have realised how dangerous he is for anyone as he has lost all empathy or ability to feel anything.
To think he is probably still looking on a dating site for a possible girlfriend. Maybe he isn’t on them anymore. Maybe scientology has stopped him now.
I hope not for those like me who were just in the end used and played with. So awful so uncaring.
We were in touch as you know from other posted 2 years. I must now have the strength and throw everything away he gave me. Not hold onto it cards and books.
My nature is gentle sensitive and caring. I have no way to every understand why he chose the path he has and who he has become.
His family I wonder how it is for them. They aren’t in Scientology. They would walk on egg shells been around him. I guess he would just cut them off if they disagreed even with one aspect of Scientology.
I’m not been nasty or bitter just so very sad.
As a thinker Jane , and given the obvious remarkable connection You had with Him, do You think about why We as a species would be attracted to the theology of this or other belief systems ? Especially to the exclusion of Our base instinct to be connected emotionally to another ? I am wondering what the Church had to offer in His time of need ? It must be delivering if still there and You are not . It would answer so much about Us and ultimately what We want and need . Regards Stephen
We can’t expect Hubbard to include in his schema of emotions, feelings that were foreign to him. We can’t know what he felt but when we hypothesize he was a sociopath, that hypothesis goes a long way in explaining his behaviors and his impersonal doctrines. Referring to people as “terminals” and “stats” (down and up), giving them inferior rank to goals and purposes, pointing an accusatory finger at those who suffer, all that and so much more, shows an absence of what most people call, “humanity”.
We can excuse Hubbard of all that because he was a sociopath but what explains why scientologists adopt his depravity with such relish?
I hear about how scientologists were motivated by their desire to help others. I think scientology appealed to our vanity and in many cases, the little bully inside us that likes to dominate. We wouldn’t be vain nor a bully if we liked ourselves. If we liked ourselves we wouldn’t make changing ourselves a religious obsession. Let me skip past the logical progressions and say that I think scientologists are unfeeling and cruel because of self-hate.
Hubbard’s ‘being at cause’ standards are impossible to live up to making the system wired for failure. You can’t measure-up so you hate yourself but you are indoctrinated to blame and dehumanize others so you blame them for your failures. They are SUPPRESSIVE. You hate them and it feels good to hate them, or rather, it feels better to hate them than to hate yourself.
Hate is what causes you to do hurtful things and love causes you to do lovely things that put very good indicators on a terminal’s face.
“If we liked ourselves we wouldn’t make changing ourselves a religious obsession.”
Bingo! This is one of the most pithy statements about scientologists I’ve seen.
And it applies to humans beyond the realm of scn.
Interestingly, the lower level services such as the Intro TR courses that even harsh critics begrudge “had some value” are eclipsed, as you pointed out, by raising the bar to an unobtainable height, “one must become cause on all dynamics”.
Thus the person is given a huge new reason to now not like himself (he is highly inadequate just for being what he is–a human being) but simultaneously, likes himself now tremendously for discovering Scientology–a way to make himself better and that he is diligently working on it.
Now, get him to accept KSW, and you’ve got a person that will spend a lifetime paying lots of money chasing an unobtainable goal.
Hubbard figured out how to monetize the natural human purpose of life–to follow ones path, learn lessons, overcome obstacles, and achieve the goals and accomplishments one set for oneself.
What a deviously brilliant trap!
“members in Scientology have unreasonable fears of people in the outside world. This fear translates to making less of outsiders and justifies treating them without love, compassion, and all too often, human decency.”
So then what is the point of making the planet a better place? If not for the people who live there? Who wants a future of cold, analytical zombots? That does not sound like a better world to me. It sounds like Hell.
The whole agonized furniture of this planet, every chair, table and place setting in it, and your own interior decorating schemes for the next endless trillions of years depend on your choice of furnishings here and now with and in your home. This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of Ikea now, we may never again have another chance. Don’t muff it now because it seems thrifty or convenient…
$cilons are steeped in this “war footing” mindset from the get go in $cn. Everything is sooo important because we’re all soooo important egotistical crap just goes hyperbolic when you delusionally imagine that, unless $cn wins, the Marcabians are coming back to wipe us out. With all of eternity at stake, then of course the group’s survival is paramount because if the group loses, then no individual or family could ever survive. But there is no war in the stars; Elron pulled all that right from out his very imaginative ass.
Once you buy into this “invisible war being fought all around us” nonsense, then folks become willing to do things they’d never consider doing otherwise. They’re willing to sacrifice having a family and a decent life on the belief that Elron and his space opera idiocy is actually a accurate and factual account of our much longer history of existence across many lifetimes. There’s no reason to believe any of it; OaTy 8s are just as fucked up, if not more so, as any average wog; they’re just a whole lot less wealthy and a whole lot more docile and gullible.
What happens to the old people? They probably don’t have any monew, or Social Security? They must see this happening to others.
They’re worked until they can work no more, then consigned to care of some junior officer who refers to them as “elderlies” and quietly shunted off to the side. They have no pension, social security and many have little or no family to rely on, so they’re at the mercy of the cult for everything that they require.
It seems like a sad existence for an elderly person. 🙁 I wonder why they don’t see their future earlier, before putting in 40 years or so? Why don’t they look around and see how others who are getting older are treated, and realize, that may be me in a few years?
More specifically, the way they handle elderly is they shunt them off to a state run old folks home and pay for it by getting them on Medicaide or Medi-Cal. Oh, and the younger women who get pregnant are forced to have abortions which are again paid for by Medicaide or Medi-Cal, which is government paying for that. So if the church wants to talk out exchange, consider this: they work in the SO and no money is paid into the Social Security System for these people, so per the church’s ideas of exchange, they become “Out Exchange” when they get on the public dole which the church puts them on. The church decries out exchange out of one side of their mouth and yet gets people on public assistance without paying into it from the other side of their mouth.
I don’t normally get bad thoughts about to many of my former ‘team mates’ but I was suddenly reminded of Angela Alvet Cook. I believe she truly thought of herself as a OT with ESP but she was like a witch with mind reading and setting spells LOL
Nothing worse than a person suffering from metaphysical delusions with an out of control ego.
It seems Scientology breeds this mindset.
After all, false knowledge and delusion is to a great degree what Scientology teaches as truth.
Hi Cece!!!
She was a VERY interesting person, wasn’t she? Quite the difference between her and Peter. I did have some seeming sincere communications with her where I thought that there was a good girl under that valence.
Love? Compassion?? Ohh jeez. Stop dramatizing, TC! Lay off the HE&R, will you! Clear your M/Us, ffs! This is natter. Enemy line. Wtf are your crimes!?
Terra Cognita, thank you once again for a very thought-provoking post. You bring up excellent points, and I often find myself thinking about your words throughout the day.
Sending best wishes as always to Mike Rinder, we all appreciate your continuing to speak out, and hope for your reconnection with your family members who are still in, especially your children, soon. Stay strong and hopeful, looking forward to watching the next season of Leah Remini’s show.
Mike, I saw a little clip of you and Leah on the A & E advertising “what’s next” or something like that. My heart swelled when I heard you say that no matter what, you will continue talking and fighting and shining light on the evil practices of DM and Scn until all the abuses have stopped and for as long as it takes. (I’m paraphrasing here). Wow, thank you so much for what you are doing and continue to do. Bless you and Leah for being so brave as to stand up for what is right for yourselves and for all of us.
What she said! Bravo!
Oh yes indeed!
IMHO, this is the single most important and best thing going on TV. I hope it will run forever – at least until there is no more SCAM cult and no one can even remember the horror of this monstrous cult headed by this monstrous person except in a way that is needed to prevent this from ever happening again – like the way people need to remember The Holocaust!
Note that I originally wrote this and called him a “man” but I used the edit feature (Thank you so much for putting it back) and changed it from “man” to something more appropriate.
Mike and Leah are two of the best heroes ever and the best thing about them is … they are approachable. They do not have their heads in the sky or whatever that expression may be. They are real people – regular people and I feel as if they are like my friends and neighbors and that they will talk to most everyone in a way as if they are our friends and neighbors – and especially …… like our lilfeguards at the neighborhood swimming pools.
Our children can all look up to Mike and Leah and be happy and thankful we have two such great friends and neighbors like them!
I agree the work Mike RInder and Lee Remini are doing is so important. This site has helped me to have a voice as a “non scientologist”and to understand how my relationship with a Scientologist would ultimately be cut for good because Scientology said so.
I kept getting reeled back in with him as he wanted my support and care. You see I cared very much for him. All my previous posted were true but he would keep coming back, I let him.
I was reeled in using phone and text due to distance. He knew what to say and when to say it. Sending symbols love and flowers everything you can imagine. Loved bomb the “Scientology Way” implemented by him when dealing with love interests-me
Yesterday the cold reality of Scientology, it’s lack of care and compassion for anyone not in Scientology came to a conclusion.
He is now OT7 and said the level he is on we can no longer stay in contact. He texted me from Clearwater.
My heart broke and my full realization of what Scientology is hit me hard. I was lucky it could have been worse. Distance saved me as said in previous posts from us ever developing into a full blown relationship.
I know I shouldn’t have gone back when he needed me and engaged in conversation-caring loving and vunerable was me.
I feel very much for those damaged and disillusioned people who put their love and trust into a “Scientologist”.
His coldness his detachment I have no words to describe. The positive is that people like Mike RInder, Lee Remini, Tony Ortega and Chris Shelton are shinning a light on Scientology and so many are becoming more informed about the workings of the church and their hard line on human care, compassion and love.
I forgive him as I dont know if he really knew the choices he would have in every area of his life would lessen the higher he climbed on the bridge but maybe he did. He will move further away from humaness now he is high on the bridge. OT8 next.
My pain will linger and will take time to heal.
This time I keep walking and wont look back. He made his choice.
Any group claiming moral authority can be very simply evaluated on the basis of how it treats those who are its weakest, least able and most in need of help…the young, the old, the physically disabled and the mentally disordered. In each of those categories, the cherch either does nothing to help or is actively engaged in victimizing them. You just don’t need to go any further than that to see clearly what kind of group that $cn truly is; everything else is just smoke and mirrors to keep you from seeing what’s right before you.
I thought I would relate a personal story of LRH. Although Lois and other messengers can give great details of his behavior I saw the effects of it on a good friend of mine, his son. I think I have posted a similar story before.
LRH’s son and I were best friends while on the Apollo and at Int. He would often be upset with the lack of a father/son relationship. He would not use this term exactly but I could tell from his words and his attitude towards his Dad that all that he wanted was love from him – which he seldom got. The impression this left me was my buddy being very sad most of the time due to, really, his lack of a father. Did LRH care? I doubt it whatsoever. The fact of LRH’s reaction when he heard of Quinten’s death is a perfect example of the love LRH didn’t have, of his family. He often disappeared for years, away from MSH and the kids while hiding from the government.
LRH also once paid a boyfriend of one of his daughters $5,000 to never see his adult daughter again. One could look at this as taking care of his daughter to keep her away from bad people. I looked at it as his meddling in her life by Mr. Gotbucks. It is not up to him who she dated and who was he to judge his character. Just another uncompassionate, controlling act. He didn’t care about her happiness.
Arthur Hubbard told me the same. He was in my house in Hollywood one night and I asked him with enthusiasm,”so Arthur, tell us some stories about your dad.” He looked at the floor, did not have eye contact with us, a depressed demeanor came over his face and he said,”I don’t see my family much.”
In retrospect this guy looked traumatized.
Exactly Brian. Arch tried to be the strong and silent type. I don’t know if he was afraid of getting into trouble or just didn’t want to express his true feelings towards his father. I’m not sure what the SO and DM did to him after I left in ’82, but I would say his parents treated him horribly throughout his childhood and early adulthood. He was a very caring person and really wanted a normal family.
Arthur has a blog and he makes a statement about Scientology.
http://www.aconwayhubbard.com/scientology/
I tried to view that but something is covering it up that moves as you scroll. I can see a blip of a question about Sci but the white “sheet” follows my scroll and covers it up?
Try a different browser. It looks ok to me.
I think Suzette and Arthur would make a splendid episode of Aftermath. 🙂
y’all need to write a book. We need to get everyone together who worked directly with or around LRH, anyone who had personal dealings with his children or wife, and have all the stories put down in writing.
The church has it’s whitewash BS history, you guys have the real deal. I don’t know how to break the brainwashed mindset and get someone OUT, but having documented stories which illustrate the truth about hubbard and how he truly acted would be a valuable tool.
The whole scn scheme only works if Hubbard was infallible and man’s greatest friend. Illustrating how he never lived up to his own definition of Clear, and OT, TRs in for Life, etc might help bring people out.
I wish I could help pull you all together. I could help, I type fast. 🙂
That is a very good idea. I have limited knowledge of LRH as far as a personal or historical viewpoint is concerned. Hopefully someone will put such a book together however.
Annie Tidman Rush Broeker (RIP) would have been the perfect person to write such a book as she was with him from probably the late 60’s until he died. Sarge (RIP) would have been a great person to fill in the last years of LRH’s life. Pat Broeker is completely under cover or no doubt paid off by DM to keep quiet. Quite convenient they are all out of the picture….
With all of the issues going on in the United States, especially the detaining and deportation of people with valid visas who are Muslim by Executive Order, this is what a prominent Scientologist in the Sacramento area posts on her Facebook page: “The government should not force us to be to heavily and unnecessarily vaccinated to but the agenda of Big Pharma. A small needed amount of vaccines is vastly different than the schedule of vaccines they push out now. They also need to make them not full of chemicals and neuro toxins. As the vaccine schedule and their chemicals have increased so has Autisum and deaths. It’s not hard to link the two. It’s a blind money driven deaf man who would ignore the two.”
Then a link to a petition to Trump to abolish the requirement that children attending public schools be up to date on their vaccinations, alleging that this rule addressing a public health crisis is establishing segregated schools.
I’m finding less and less in common with Scientology and Scientologists. A lack of compassion is but just one attribute. I think the description “a blind money driven deaf man” perfectly describes these people.
You better look at the actual danger of some vaccines. It’s all on internet. It has nothing to do with scientology whatsoever!
I prefer to get my information from science, such as the UC Davis Mind Institute, not the “internet,” There is inherently some danger to just about everything, i.e. riding a bike, but the benefits outweigh the dangers. When I was young, parents purposely exposed their children to diseases, so they could get the childhood disease over with and establish immunity. Sometimes it didn’t work out so well. People forget how many children died from now preventable diseases.
Thank you for being a voice of reason. The risks absolutely are not worth failing to vaccinate your children.
Yes! Vaccinate! The graveyards are full of bodies of the children & babies that died from the preventable diseases. It is easy to be “cocky” and stay that vaccines harm; when there is no memory of the young ones that dies from these horrible childhood illnesses.
So, this would mean, no more polio vaccines? Are these people insane?
Hear, hear!
I recommend writings by the English doctor (and science journalist) Ben Goldacre about this.
For instance the BMJ not so long ago: http://www.bmj.com/content/335/7611/126
I’ve also read this because I have many grandchildren and wanted the katest. This grounded in pure science, not speculation, guesswork or prejudice. P,ease read.
There actually happens to now be a great reality check about vaccines. It might once have looked like there could be a tenuous correlation (though not proof of causation) between vaccination and autism, but there’s clearly not even a correlation anymore.
After the vaccine scare of about two decades ago, vaccination rates actually dropped off. But autism diagnoses have continued to increase on the same upward trend they were before.
Not to mention that the small and shoddy study by Wakefield that triggered the original has not only been disproven, but a huge new study has been done that shows no actual causation between vaccination and autism.
We really need to work on promoting scientific literacy. On a related note, I think that one of the glaring flaws of Hubbard’s work is that he did nothing to educate his followers on scientific method, logical thinking and cognitive biases (such as iIllusory correlation, mental pitfalls as potentially harmful as any of the engrams or implants that Hubbard proposed), which would actually have made them smarter and freer.
Peacemaker: “On a related note, I think that one of the glaring flaws of Hubbard’s work is that he did nothing to educate his followers on scientific method, logical thinking and cognitive biases (such as illusory correlation, mental pitfalls as potentially harmful as any of the engrams or implants that Hubbard proposed), which would actually have made them smarter and freer.”
You must not be familiar with the Data Series. It has everything to do with logic and proper evaluation of data, as well as how to detect and handle the causes of good and bad situations. (Not that I want to get in a big discussion about it, however. 😉 )
marildi, I’m familiar with the Data Series.
It addresses only a very limited amount of real logic like fallacies, and none of the common logical fallacies that Hubbard fell in to – or used as traps. Did it teach you how to avoid confusing causation and correlation, or identify the use of false authority?
The Series doesn’t teach scientific method, nor analysis of scientific data. I’m virtually certain that it doesn’t cover anything about the placebo effect, for instance, does it? Does it teach even basics of real data analysis, like how to remove outliers from a simple data set?
It does go on at length about Hubbard’s take on 1950s-era “scientific management” of businesses and organizations, and a type of situational analysis (which does not really involve data, even though he uses that word constantly when he more accurately should be using some term like observations) in a way that ends up doing a lot of indoctrination into the particular way that Hubbard wants you to think about the world. And the management part hasn’t ever worked out very well for Scientology’s orgs, other than the occasional unsustainable temporary “boom” somewhere, has it?
By Hubbard’s standards, you could say it’s observed “data” that the sun revolves around the earth. But that’s not scientific, and not true.
PeaceMaker: “By Hubbard’s standards, you could say it’s observed ‘data’ that the sun revolves around the earth. But that’s not scientific, and not true.”
Just a short reply regarding the meaning of “data” when in the context of doing an evaluaton. It can refer to facts, graphs, statements, decisions, actions, or descriptions – which are supposedly, but not necessarily, true. It’s what your dealing with in a given situation. Data you’re presented with in life isn’t necessarily scientific.
marildi, the fact that you have to explain the meaning of “data” in a scientological context shows part of the problem, that Hubbard is redefining words, Orwell-style. That’s symptomatic of an approach that is part proper logical (though not really scientific) method and analysis, but mostly a particular philosophy being labeled as “science” (again, in a very Orwellian way) and indoctrinating people into a particular way of thinking and world view.
One of the most obvious oddities of the methodology is that it often leads to people looking for a “why” in a situation that is a person or group to be blamed for bad outcomes, a responsibility-shirking and paranoid approach that is reflective of Hubbard’s personality. The unworkability of it is exemplified in the many problems of Scientology, which is dedicated to applying it, and then left often unable to analyze the true nature of problems like their bad public image and failing organizational structure, often blaming it on others (internal “SPs”, outside “psych” conspiracies, etc.) rather than recognizing and addressing the real causes (hostile attitude towards the outside world and particularly attacks on perceived enemies that get widespread and unfavorable coverage in modern electronic media, outdated management policies such as reliance on paper files, etc).
PeaceMaker: “…the fact that you have to explain the meaning of ‘data’ in a scientological context shows part of the problem, that Hubbard is redefining words, Orwell-style.”
I simply gave you examples of different types of data, since you seemed to be having trouble understanding what data is. The definition used by Hubbard isn’t any different from the regular English definition: “things known or assumed as facts, making the basis of reasoning or calculation.”
Your own lack of understanding is what leads you to conclude that “Hubbard is redefining words, Orwell-style.” Again I’ll say that, even though you are fluent with words, you seem to have already reached your conclusions and view anything to the contrary through those filters.
This is the main reason I don’t want to go round and round with you. Sorry. I’m sure you have good intentions.
marildi, Hubbard’s definition of data is an expansion on the dictionary definition such as you cited, is not what is generally accepted, and certainly is not a scientific one – or even one used in organizational management. That’s why it is, in fact, a re-definition of the term, though Hubbard was fairly clever about doing such things subtly enough to make it hard to see what he was up to, like a magician’s slight of hand.
Without getting too much further into it, you even mentioned “decisions, actions” as examples of data, which is completely nonsensical in normal terms. I understand how it is used in Scientology, but that is indeed an entirely different matter – and, again, a redefinition. Here’s a better definition of data, from the Cambridge Dictionary, including examples of real-world usage:
information, especially facts or numbers, collected to be examined and considered and used to help decision-making, or information in an electronic form that can be stored and used by a computer:
The data was/were collected by various researchers.
Now the data is/are being transferred from magnetic tape to hard disk.
The data is stored on a hard disk and backed up on a floppy disk.
The report was written after analysing data from the case histories of thousands of patients.
Scientists hope that data from the space probe will pave the way for a more detailed exploration of Mars.
The system will handle phone calls and data messages as well as other signals that need high bandwidth.
The data, normally transmitted electronically, can be changed into pulses of light.
If you look at a really good source like the OED (which, unfortunately, I don’t have at hand) you will find that the scientological definition fits with some relatively obscure uses, including philosophy. But that’s not the premise of Hubbard’s data series, it’s supposed to be “technology” for commonplace application, though what he is actually doing is trying to indoctrinate people into his philosophy by mis-stating it as something approaching “science.”
I’m constantly readjusting my perspectives to new information, including opinions. I have come to some conclusions about the subjects at hand after about 4 decades that are probably fairly well settled for me, though still not entirely set. How long has it been that you’ve been reconsidering what you once accepted or believed?
Honestly, when you write “you seem to have already reached your conclusions and view anything to the contrary through those filters,” the first thing I think of is the Hubbard quote, one of the things he got right (and then ignored to his own peril):
“the overt doth speak loudly in accusation”
For those who think ¨The Data Series¨ deals with anything remotely related to logical analysis, I recommend this vaccine: https://bookofbadarguments.com/
Cheers!
Logical fallacies have to do with poor reasoning in an argument or debate, as in the book title: “Bad Arguments.” The data series deals with the proper (logical) evaluation of data in order to detect and handle situations.
Wrong marildi. what Hubbard concocted was NOT proper logic.
That is, logic based on argument involving deductively necessary relationships and including the use of syllogisms and mathematical symbols.
Hubbard begged his sheep to NOT study that subject so he could dupe them with his false data implant.
This is the reason that YOUR arguments so often deal in nothing but ILLOGIC’S.
Wynski, your comment is just one example of your frequent use (second only to Ad Hom) of the logical fallacy called Bare Assertion, i.e. “When a premise is introduced as a conclusion without substantiation. Also known as: ipse-dixitism
“This fallacy is often accompanied by a phrase such as ‘Trust me’ [sound familiar?]. It might be considered a self-referential appeal to authority [which is also a logical fallacy]. A more rigorous and constrained discussion might allow [one] to ask ‘What is your evidence for that claim?’ However, when bare assertions are constantly thrown out as red herrings, it may be best to abandon any hope of real dialogue.”
https://logfall.wordpress.com/bare-assertion-fallacy/
“As the vaccine schedule and their chemicals have increased so has Autisum and deaths. It’s not hard to link the two. It’s a blind money driven deaf man who would ignore the two.”
The inability to understand that correlation (i.e., two or more things happening at the same time or in rapid succession) does not causation has been at the root of just so much ignorance and wrong-headed beliefs and actions throughout history.
The fact that the first signs of autism often occur around the time that the first set of childhood vaccinations are given certainly gives rise to the question of whether or not they are causally related, but to just assume that they are is very unwise, given the fact that prior to vaccines being available hundreds of thousands, if not millions, died or became disabled by the diseases that they were developed in order to prevent.
Twump and his crew of hand-picked useful idiots are quite likely to wade into a debate that they have no business becoming involved in because they have no background in science or even the very basis understanding of the fact that correlation is NOT the same thing as causation.
True Believer $cilons engage in the same kind of logically fallacious thinking all the time, so it’s not surprising when they get easily led down some other primrose path.
Speaking of vaccinations…Since I was born into SCN, my parents never gave me any vaccines. Luckily I got thru all of the normal childhood diseases just fine.
I did have a slight benefit from never having a polio vaccine though. I heard that if one of my 3 boys had the polio vaccine (which they all received), that I really shouldn’t change their diapers as the disease could be transmitted thru their stool. Well, that was my story and I stuck to it thru all 3 of my boys. I think I changed one of my kids diapers the entire time.
…yes, that was probably wrong of me… But, Lois forgives me and I never got polio and we coped with the boys without my changing abilities.
I know this vaccine-autism issue is controversial for many folks, but my wife and I actually have a 9-year old son who has been diagnosed with autism, although compared to many others we’ve seen with autism, his case seems to be fairly mild. Therefore, I would like to put my thoughts out there on this issue.
We first started noticing potential signs of autism around the time of his first vaccination (can’t remember actual dates). We had heard about some people claiming a link between vaccines and autism (such as Jenny McCarthy). It certainly made us wonder if that could be the cause of it. I conduct scientific research for a living, so at the time, I decided I would look into this potential link a bit more.
And I must say, even though you would think that parents like us would be very persuaded to believe that there is a link and to get an answer as to “why did this happen to our child of all children”, I cannot logically accept that there is any true “scientific link” that has been established between the use of vaccines and autism. I’ve looked at the models used to “research” this (and I use the term “research” loosely as it relates to this issue) and it is very sketchy “research” at best.
Every parent of an autistic child wants answers as to how it happens (mostly for closure, but also to try to find a link so we can try to stop it and possibly even “reverse the effects”). I’ve concluded that the old paper that was published regarding this link between the two (that has since been retracted and vehemently disavowed by many independent scientists) played on the fears of many parents of autistic children, such as my wife and me. And it’s extremely dangerous to do so.
But even as a father to an autistic son, I will take this even one step further. Let just say, hypothetically, that one day they can scientifically link vaccine use to an increased prevalence of autism. Even though I would absolutely LOVE to “cure my son” or to have prevented his autism in the first place, I would STILL have my son (and our daughter) vaccinated if I had to do it all over again.
Why? Because as a parent, I would MUCH rather deal with having to work a little harder with him over some of his “quirky” tendencies, than I would having to deal with a very life-threatening and/or life-altering disease for my child that these vaccines can help protect against. My son may be “different”, but he’s a happy kid who is extremely special to us, and I wouldn’t even consider putting his life in potential danger to any number of deadly diseases if it can be prevented (or at least give a much lesser chance of him contracting any of them).
If anyone has an infant or will soon have one, and they develop concerns about a potential link between vaccine use and autism, I would strongly encourage you to try to logically find out the facts. It simply doesn’t exist except possibly on an “emotional level” for some. And even if you do have these concerns and think there may be a link between vaccines and autism, to please consider, as a parent, if you’re willing to put your child’s life in potential danger in order to avoid your kid possibly developing a little differently (but in their own way, developing in a very special manner).
If you want to try to find ways of using alternative chemicals (such as replacing the extremely low levels of mercury found in some vaccines), I’m all for that. Push for alternatives that could be safer. But until that time, the best course of action, in my opinion, is to “play your odds” and get your children vaccinated for their own protection and well-being.
Don’t mean to preach to anyone, but as a parent of an autistic child, I wanted to put my thoughts out there on this controversy and explain how I had to think logically rather than emotionally as it relates to our decision to continue with our son’s vaccines even after his diagnosis of autism.
thank you; and may you and your family be well, happy & safe.
Hi Mick,
As a teacher of students with autism I thank you! I am standing up and cheering! You sound like amazing parents. Thank you for your thoughtful and well researched comments ???
As a nurse, I thank you for your comment. I have read the studies. If vaccines were the cause of autism, there would be no autism amongst the unvaccinated children. That is simply not the case. Listen to science, not movie stars.
Such cold hearted bunch. Compassion and love are so important to the human psyche. It balances us out. Hubbard really had no clue about what was really important.
Actually, that was the beginning of the end of my being a Scientologist. I started to question why the word: “love” was never written by LRH. They said he uses the word: Affinity. I said I have affinity for a tree; but I love people. There is a difference. And then the “wasband” left me to live with his mommy & then another staff scientologist. I guess he showed me what love was all about!
TC, thanks for this insightful piece about one of the glaring “outpoints” about Hubbard, and Scientology.
I’ll leave it to others with deep experience in Scientology to comment meaningfully, and look forward to seeing their responses to you. But I do want to offer up a couple of observations from a perspective that I think will be helpful.
It’s classic of narcissistic and psychopathic personalities that they don’t experience love normally, if it all. Psychopaths in particular don’t, and only use empathy as a tool of manipulation. Thus what you describe fits with the characterizations we have been seeing of Hubbard as a malignant narcissist or sociopath (the two are quite similar, and only have been well understood in recent times), and having imprinted his character on his organization.
Briefly, empathy is a more profound version of sympathy, that involves really trying to connect with the emotions of another rather than just feeling sorry for them. Compassion lies in between those two, and can be considered a sort of realistic medium for everyday life.
Hubbard put sympathy at the bottom of the “tone scale,” only hints at empathy with the concept of “affinity” on the ARC triangle model of human interaction, and essentially ignores compassion. It has long struck me how empathy is almost completely lacking in Hubbard’s work, including as compassion.
Besides the importance of empathy to us as human beings, research has shown that it is one of the things that makes a good therapist, and that the most effective therapists tent to be empathetic by nature (though empathy can be trained). Auditing is largely talk therapy, and there are consistent reports that people felt that they had the best experience of auditing when they had an auditor who they felt really listened (and could even audit without an e-meter), and not when the process was just mechanical. So it makes sense that we hear that auditing is less effective, when it is treated as mostly a mechanical process (and relying entirely on the e-meter) without considering additional auditor or therapist qualities like empathy.
Another component is “tough love” which aptly describes the cult. Probably any cult. They’re doing this “for your own good.”
At the upper executive realm it’s sounding like there’s a worship of David Miscavige, and I get an impression that from their perspective they know $cientology is bullshit.
In the lower circles, $cientologists feel an unconditional love to, and from, L. Ron Hubbard.
I disagree.
I disagree and I don’t think that articles written in this manner are truly helpful.
Scientology is a brainwashing cult and the manner in which its adherents are brainwashed are laid out in the ‘tech’. I do think that the articles written which give the actual doctrines and then the real life examples of such ARE helpful.
As a public, I walk into the org and everyone is glad to see me. The receptionist, the regs, the staff going by, the supervisors etc. I’ve spent almost 4 decades going in. The supervisors are happy to see you, if you get into trouble studying they’re happy to help with word clearing, etc.
Auditors are happy to audit you, your success stories are happily received, they’re GLAD you had wins. Success stories are read out at staff musters/meetings, and the staff are happy to hear them and are buoyed.
As a staff member I was happy with the public, I loved seeing new guys come in, get on course, tell me their wins. I was thankful for my fellow staff members. I worked hard to help them when I could, I cursed the assholes. There were some, but not many. When I worked my ass off and hired a new staff member we were all joyful.
When our staff and public had babies, we had showers, we were happy to see them, the babies are loved and fawned over. Naming ceremonies, godparents named.
We formed schools to protect our children, to make sure that they were educated in ways that wouldn’t crush the lively wonderful spirits we’d given birth to.
When someone died we had funerals, when someone was ill we’d make sure they were “getting assists”.
Nobody would stay in if we were all just single-minded, self first, cut everyone loose assholes. Nobody would stay in if they weren’t fully brainwashed.
I’ve sat in course rooms for thousands of hours, studying and helping others. I’ve knocked myself out drilling my twins. Going out of my way to help other students. If you were in for any length of time and made any bridge progress, this is true for you too, we all did this.
When you have 100 percent certainty in the tech, you’ve experienced great wins and have seen all your friends and family (who are in) have similar wins, it’s heartbreaking to lose people. It’s heartbreaking to hear of someone, “going off the rails” “blowing” “becoming antago”. This means they’re LOST and it hurts and you hope so fervently that they come back. It’s THEIR ETERNITY.
Scientology ethics policies can be viewed as “tough love”, we do it, we did it, because we honestly and truly believe it will help, that it’s the ONLY help that will work.
……..
I fully agree that there is a big wide vein of truth to the ideas in the article – but to really paint the picture of truth one would need to try to capture the nuances how that truth is veined throughout the lives and activities of Scientologists.
There are bullies made in the SO and on staffs. There are IAS regges who treat you like you’re invisible and with scorn if you’re not giving to them. There are insane ‘justice’ actions.
But mainly, the main truth is that these people truly believe in a whole bag of shit and they think they’re helping. They’re giving their entire lives they’re so certain.
To deconstruct this is a huge task and I applaud the efforts to do so. But I don’t agree with general statements strung together which just point out the bad/crazy things without illustrating how they get there, what the references are, or which end up giving the impression that scientologists are some other species and just a bunch of assholes.
They’re NOT. Vilify the tech and show it and how it harms and how it brings about the ugly mindset and actions.
I don’t blame the poor sods who are brainwashed. Not when I can avoid it.
(*but there ARE some real assholes, just like any group!)
“But I don’t agree with GENERAL STATEMENTS STRUNG TOGETHER WHICH JUST POINT OUT THE BAD/CRAZY THINGS WITHOUT ILLUSTRATING how they get there, what the references are, or which end up giving the impression that scientologists are some other species and just a bunch of assholes.”
Spot on.
I think there is more truth to the fact that staff and public misinterpreted tech and policy than the idea that tech and policy were the cause of their thinking and behavior. Of course, Hubbard can (and will) still be blamed for all of it, in any case.
“I think there is more truth to the fact that staff and public misinterpreted tech and policy than the idea that tech and policy were the cause of their thinking and behavior”
Of course you do. They pulled it in.
“They pulled it in.”
That’s a good example of misinterpretation and misapplication.
And it’s a good example of making a statement “without illustrating how it gets there or what the references are,” to quote secretfornow again. AND it’s how group think comes about.
Hey, Marildi!
Hi, Chris!
Hey, why don’t you see how you could chime in and stand up for me?
Kidding! 😀
You know I love you. But you don’t need me and anyway, I don’t have a dog in this fight anymore. Have we written since my eldest daughter moved back to Phoenix this past Summer? Now my nuclear family is finally all bunched up close together. Lots of good, and your Winter invite is still open. Just say when. You remember how to email me, right?
OMG, Chris. I’m so happy for you about your daughter! I’ve been meaning to write you for a while and will do so tomorrow! I had a hunch something or other was up, since I haven’t seen you “around.” Great news. 🙂
Thank you sweetie. I wish you health and happiness.
marildi, on TC’s topic, when love and compassion are totally missing from the “tech” and “policy,” but then there is extensive emphasis on harsh and retributive “ethics” and “justice” programs, though reform and punishment, disconnection and “always attack, never defend” directives, it’s not surprising that people within the organization think and behave the way that they do.
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at with Hubbard, but his remorseless and abusive behavior from the beginning of his career to its end, did indeed also set an example and course for the organization to follow.
“love and compassion are totally missing” “remorseless and abusive behavior from the beginning of his career to its end”
The claims you make are, at best, cynical exaggerations. But I’m not interested in interminably hashing it out. I just wanted to put in my 2 cents.
marildi, if those things are exaggerated, then without “interminably hashing it out” you should easily be able to come up with a examples of Hubbard teaching love and compassion, or expressing remorse about something like the abusive way that he treated the people around him during the early days of Dianetics or on the Apollo.
Even Hubbard’s butler and personal Ken Urquhart, who you saw fit to cite yesterday as an example of someone with extensive personal knowledge and some remaining favorable opinions, concedes that Hubbard was guilty of cruelty and abuses over an extended period (including on the Apollo), and is ultimately responsible for what the Scientology organizations have become. While Urquhart doesn’t fault the “tech and policy,” he still points out that Hubbard’s actions lead to how staff and public came to interpret tech and policy in the ways that are now widely reviled.
PeaceMaker: “…you should easily be able to come up with a examples of Hubbard teaching love and compassion…”
Off the top of my head, there’s the Chart of Human Evaluation in Science of Survival. Love is at the very top of the Chart, in the Affinity column, and the description there is “Love–strong, outgoing.”
There’s also the essay “What is Greatness?” Here are some lines from it:
“The hardest task one can have is to continue to love his fellows despite all reasons he should not.
“And the true sign of sanity and greatness is to so continue.
“For the one who can achieve this, there is abundant hope.
“For those who cannot, there is only sorrow, hatred and despair. And these are not the things of which greatness—or sanity or happiness are made.
[…]
“Happiness and strength endure only in the absence of hate. To hate alone is the road to disaster. To love is the road to strength. To love in spite of all is the secret of greatness. And may very well be the greatest secret in this universe.”
Indeed, Mr. Hubbard said we should love our fellows in spite of the difficulty in doing so. However, I can’t help but think of the Martians in that Tim Burton film who proclaimed, “WE COME IN PEACE!, WE COME IN PEACE!” all the while they were blasting everything to smithereens with their ray guns.
marildi, thanks for rising to the challenge. I’d searched for any mention of love in Hubbard’s writings, and couldn’t find it. I think you have proven that Hubbard’s writings are so voluminous – and self-contradictory – that you can find pretty much anything you want in them, similar to other religious texts.
SoS was published in 1951, and in it he also writes about “the sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale” and cites the example of a dictator who had all the beggars in his country killed. This was also the year that Hubbard was locked in bitter and even vicious struggles with the second wife that “he never had,” and his early business partners. The news and court records of that time document how Hubbard first kidnapped Sarah, the wife he notoriously claimed for the rest of his life to have “never had,” and Alexis, the daughter he later disavowed was even his, and then after that took the child to Cuba and taunted her mother with the prospect that he had killed the baby and chopped her into pieces. It seems as if he was perhaps writing something about love to distract from the reality of his actions.
The other quote comes from an essay in a book published in 1965, though I can’t tell for certain if it might be one of . Nonetheless, 1965 was still another landmark year, when Hubbard was busy putting together harsh “ethics” policies to implement, including the SP and PTS declares, and the infamous “fair game” policy whose implementation against rival or splinter groups he specified in terms such as “Any meeting by them should be torn up….this is our policy: Harass these people in any way possible.” And of course it’s also when he came up with the most infamous policy of all, disconnection. Once again, I think we have to wonder if anything written and published about love at that time, wasn’t being put forth as a propaganda to try to distract from what was actually being done.
It’s things like this that leave me wondering if Hubbard didn’t actually have something at least functionally similar to multiple personalities, one humanitarian and the other evil. Any thoughts on that, marildi?
I guess the question I should have asked is, other than perhaps a couple of typical mentions in pieces that could be just for PR purposes, is there any evidence that Hubbard and Scientology actually focused on practicing or teaching love and compassion? (and I have yet to see any mention at all of the latter)
PeaceMaker: “I guess the question I should have asked is, other than perhaps a couple of typical mentions in pieces that could be just for PR purposes, is there any evidence that Hubbard and Scientology actually focused on practicing or teaching love and compassion? (and I have yet to see any mention at all of the latter).”
I don’t recall the word “compassion” ever being used, but I looked it up and found that in Hubbard’s day it wasn’t used nearly as much as it is now. See the graph here: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7&case_insensitive=on&content=compassion&direct_url=t4%3B%2Ccompassion%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bcompassion%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCompassion%3B%2Cc0
But whether or not specific words were used misses the point that the whole of Scientology philosophy could rightfully be said to be based on love and compassion for one’s fellow man. If that weren’t the case, it wouldn’t have attracted the kind of people it did (for the most part) or have gained their support and dedication for as long as it did. The most fundamental cornerstone of the philosophy is ARC (regardless of how the actual practice may have evolved), where affinity is defined as “the feeling of love or liking,” which is the first definition of it in the tech dictionary.
But again, I don’t want us to spin our wheels trying to discuss the subject in such broad terms.
Miraldi, for some reason there was no comment button after Chris’ comment to you. Please ask Chris to tell us the story of how he got his daughter back? I would love to read of a disconnected family now whole again, all the details please.
Cindy, I wanted to ask him too, but I have a feeling he has his reasons not to go into it on a blog, or he would have done so. But to be sure, I will ask him when I get in comm by email and see what he says.
yep – and it’s all in writing and in the lectures, it’s right there. He peddled the hatred and arrogance, and harmful policies.
marildi – I see it the other way around. Mike has put together some stellar articles that lay out how staff and public behavior is totally informed by the tech itself.
yes, we had some “little hitlers’ – it’s like the armed forces or police, you get assholes who get involved so they can vent their own twisted evilness under a cloak of Doing Their Job.
But all the bad can be traced to Hubbard’s own words and actions.
Every
Single
Bit of it!
“But all the bad can be traced to Hubbard’s own words and actions.”
I think that’s a specious overgeneralization. The “little Hitlers” had a big influence on many good hats – just as the real Hitler did.
Since he claimed every bit of the credit for all of $cn, it doesn’t seem to me to be unfair or unwarranted at all to saddle him with complete responsibility for its many errors, mistakes and general misapprehension of science. Indeed, placing blame where it belongs, instead of on the many thousands of folks who never attained the promised abilities that Elron was never shy about exaggerating, seems like the required “correct indication” at this point in time to me.
I just sit in amazement at your ability to hold simultaneously in your mind the massive amount of evidence which amply demonstrates the fact that Elron was a pathological liar with the belief that he created something unique, valuable and worth preserving as a system. To me, the former precludes the latter.
How are able to hold these two matter/anti-matter sets of knowledge in your head without it exploding? What’s the trick?
HP: “I just sit in amazement at your ability to hold simultaneously in your mind the massive amount of evidence which amply demonstrates the fact that Elron was a pathological liar with the belief that he created something unique, valuable and worth preserving as a system. To me, the former precludes the latter.”
For all your claims to critical thinking, it’s illogical to assume that even a pathological liar couldn’t create something valuable and worth preserving. Studies have shown they can. Here are just two cited studies:
“As a new study in the journal Personality and Individual Differences reveals, many of those with psychopathic tendencies can also be incredibly creative.” http://www.iflscience.com/brain/rebellious-psychopaths-may-also-be-creative-geniuses/
“The prosocial psychopath model of creativity (Galang, 2010) proposes that some highly creative personalities share certain neuropsychological features in common with people who are described as having psychopathic traits.” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916302355
How do you misinterpret:
Psyches are from Farsec
All critics of Scientology have criminal pasts
Don’t discuss Scientology with critics; find their crimes
Love despite all provocation vs. destroy the utterly
Criticism = overt
Disagreement = MU
Gays should be disposed of quietly and without sorrow
It seems to me, that to argue that people do not understand, or wrongly understand, when they have to sort out this delusional mish mosh is quite a Herculean task.
On one hand Hubbard preaches love and tolerance, and then he says that Manuela was ruthless but not ruthless enough to sleep with a soldiers to have them murder someone.
Or that she did not abduct a young girl from its mother and give her to Negro troops to play with.
There are some workable things in Scientology. But the problem is not misinterpreting Ron’s writings and applying them wrong.
The real discrimination is:
Which writings are from looney land, and which from Ron the normal person.
To equate bad outcomes from Scientology with wrong understanding of it only reveals a lack of understanding of Scientology; it’s inconsistency, cognitive dissonance, false knowledge, Ron the loon etc.
MUs are not the problem. The problems are the doctrines themselves.
” which end up giving the impression that scientologists are some other species and just a bunch of assholes.”
That sounds somewhat like a general statement strung together. It’s not that I disagree with the assessment but perhaps you can help by ………..
” ILLUSTRATING how they get there,”
IMHO, they got there by studying and applying the TECH as outlined by Hubbard and enforced via his KSW policy. It seems to produce uniformly consistent results.
Dear secretfornow,
I’ve always looked upon the commenting chat sites and blogs sort of also like a “Correction List” with just endless possibility statements and views, any of which might “indicate” or “read” for the ex members.
And for the outside public who are shocked with their imperfect understand of the Scientology movement’s intricacies and controversies.
The chat site articles and opinions are all “Repair List” a big human conversation “Repair List” or “Correction List”.
An unrestrained C/S 53, off the meter.
LOL.
I like that. I know we all had different experiences and these sites are such a lifeline. I’m so thankful.
(and I like reading your stuff, you helped me at Flag years ago)
I was attempting to comment on your initial comment, but this site won’t allow me. So, I comment here. Thanks for writing that. I had many similar experiences with Scientology staff members as you.
imho, the closer you get to the SO, the more difficult it is to be true to who you really are. Which is more “liquid love” I think, than a “hundred megawatt being” or whatever. I saw lots of missions put together loving groups and field practices, too.
Orgs and the SO have always had a rougher time, I think, due to various arbitraries entered into Scn philosophy and granted equal status as being “tech” as real truths.
In other words, Ethics and Penalties PL, Ethics and Review PL, the PL that states “reward upstats and penalize downstats”, the whole thing about making the penalties for non-compliance too gruesome to confront.
These were ideas that managers in non-Scn groups made and that Hubbard found short range success with in getting things done. But they are low toned management procedures I think.
I’ve been at one time of another to all but 5 or 6 of the orgs in the Western Hemisphere. They were hungry, they were overworked, they could sometimes be mean, but they never wanted to be. When they were mean it was from despair, and they hated being that way.
I think that there were a fair number of groups and some org at some times who ran their groups much like “An Essay on Management” with a sense of real purpose and love. I think even in orgs that were being bossed around by insensitive Flag management, there have always been minor theta goal finders who have kept a kind and sensitive attitude towards their fellow staff and public.
There’s too much “Admin Tech” that just thoroughly stinks. And FO stuff too.
I was never Flag or Int crew, but I met a lot of them as a service org staffer and SO member. I could tell that these guys were being pushed HARD, HARD, HARD to be “tough and unreasonable” and I saw a lot of guys who never caved in to that. They remained good and compassionate people no matter what. It was very hard to demonstrate it as much as they wanted to, but they found ways.
Agreed secretfornow. Articles such as this are NOT truly helpful to the dangerous cult of scientology nor to its vicious practitioners.
We finally agree!
“its vicious practitioners”
nope. I can’t agree with this paintbrush.
misguided, yes.
I just disagree, I’m not vicious, my friends aren’t. Wrong headed but good hearted.
secretfornow, sorry for that. See my other post for the other ONE of two alternatives for why practitioners of scamology are what they are.
I never met one person like you in Scientology. They were all assholes. Sorry – but Scientology audits out care, compassion and love. That is why people don’t stay in and why Scientology is dwindling down to nothing.
I am a human being in a body that has needs.
Compassion, love and are some of those needs.
I never got ANY of that in Scientology.
It is FAKE ARC in order for Staff to get stats.
I’m sorry Idle, sorry for your lack of good experiences. Yet also, you’re so lucky!! I hope it helped to keep you from wasting your time in scn.
I spent a lot of time at Flag over a bunch of years. I was there for the GAT II release, and lots more. Every single time I went to Flag I got fantastic service. The sups, the word clearers, even the EOs. I had a couple auditors who were less than super, but then I had a few others, WOW. They were so caring, so excellent, such flawless handlings. I adore some of these people.
I wish I could pull them out. Their hearts are in the right place.
I experienced a lot of injustice as a staff member. We have great “war stories”. So much BS went on over the years. But none of it “stuck” to us because we were all just trying, to free ourselves and others.
It’s too bad it was all a big waste of time. Too bad it was built on lies.
” When you have 100 percent certainty in the tech, you’ve experienced great wins and have seen all your friends and family (who are in) have similar wins, it’s heartbreaking to lose people. It’s heartbreaking to hear of someone, “going off the rails” “blowing” “becoming antago”. This means they’re LOST and it hurts and you hope so fervently that they come back. It’s THEIR ETERNITY.”
I understand how you might disagree with the article SFN, but I am curious why you are here visiting this blog? It seems like you have found happiness in what Scientology has to offer and being here could put that in jeopardy.
My experiences with that organization have been far different. Your comment:
” This means they’re LOST and it hurts and you hope so fervently that they come back. It’s THEIR ETERNITY.”
is very much not true for me but I do understand how my Kids who are still-in likely feel exactly as you describe. Each has told me that they do not want any further contact until I complete my A to E.
Hi SFN, your post is compelling. I understand what you mean about looking at Scientologists with a one-dimensional viewpoint, (or like an animal in the zoo) when it’s much more nuanced. I don’t think that was the intention of TC’s writing though.
I think that articles like Terra’s are helpful to some Scientologists who are questioning and are looking for confirmation that what they are observing and feeling is real, so that they are not crazy or evil just thinking about it. I know people who struggled with this and I did myself as well.
Everyone leaves in increments and has a wake-up moment. Some exit very quickly and for others, it takes years. It seems that you have moved way beyond it all and consider Scientology to be a destructive cult. So yes, it makes sense that in order to get someone fully out, real life examples need to be used. Not only to help the person see differences, but to help them feel safe to do this.
Anyone who is reading the blogs and is in the church must be questioning and looking for a way out on some level, and reading articles and comments can be very therapeutic. Leaving the church in your own heart, mind and soul can be a very lonely and scary path.
It’s also true that there are some people who will steadfastly remain in the CoS, no matter what they have read on the internet. It may seem implausible but it’s true. I know a couple of people like this. They basically say “I don’t care about all that stuff”, “it’s not my business what happens at the Int Base, that’s their problem”, etc. It’s hard for me to understand other than to see what damage has been caused on them.
I
Thank you, I appreciate that you understand my concept of the mindset of winning scientologists. I have experienced this and was totally devout and committed for most of my life. I was very well trained and experienced in all areas. I had massive wins on everything until I didn’t.
As I reached the top of the bridge a huge change took place and it all changed for me. I have to be careful about what I say, as my life is fully in the scientology soup pot. I’m not willing to lose it all.
But I know that I was brainwashed the entire time. I know that it’s more harmful than good. There are too many lies.
As a scientologist I recognized that scientology was the tech, it wasn’t the people. The people were fallible and aberrated, but the “stable datum” was the tech, it was LRH. Staff make errors, apply policy wrongly, are unaware of policy, are driven to out ethics, etc, but ‘man is basically good’ and the tech was where my certainty was.
NOW I know that what was ‘aberrated’ and fallible, was the tech! haha!
I think that what Mike and others are doing is fantastic, I owe him so much, I owe all of you so very much. You all help me every day, this is why I come here. I have a secret sea of voices who will listen to me and not kick me out. (for my own good)
I’m aware that this blog is read by a whole gamut and spectrum of folks, and I’d just like to add my one small voice to do my part to help others understand.
I don’t want witch hunts. I do my best to avoid the cult-speak, but I’ll use it for this case – I want to make sure we have “the correct target”.
🙂
secretfornow: “NOW I know that what was ‘aberrated’ and fallible, was the tech! haha!”
What happened to “pointing out what the references are”?
Not to give you a bad time, because I think you come from a clean space, but I’d sincerely like to know what you’re referring to.
Marildi, you never give up, do you?
The people I wrote about who have read so much damning info on the internet and still choose to side with the church (they actually say the tech and LRH), do so because they say that they know that LRH gave his entire life to help people and that the tech is the only thing that can save humanity. They also believe that the tech works 100% for every person, standardly applied, providing that the person is not a SP, PTS, or psych damaged. This is what they cling to and it is their right to do so.
Marildi, I like you and appreciate what you have to say. When I hear people say the things that I wrote above, in spite of duly informed, I have a difficult time with that. It is really hard for me to understand.
I think Secretfornow made herself clearly understood where she’s at. She called Scientology a ” brainwashing cult”, and a “bag of shit.” What is there to clarify?
Hennessy: “I think Secretfornow made herself clearly understood where she’s at. She called Scientology a ‘brainwashing cult’, and a ‘bag of shit’. What is there to clarify?”
Okay, let me start by pointing out that you (like many others) are using the word ‘Scientology’ to mean the church as well as the tech/philosophy. Lumping the two together creates a problem in communicating on the subject, because to some of us the church and core Scientology are two different things.
Apparently, secretfornow had this same point of view and differentiated the two meanings for many years – and had many great gains with the tech, while at the same time disapproved of the church. But now he has drastically changed his mind about the tech, and I thought it only fair that he be more specific about what he’s referring to exactly.
You also wrote: “Marildi, I like you and appreciate what you have to say. When I hear people say the things that I wrote above, in spite of duly informed, I have a difficult time with that. It is really hard for me to understand.”
I like you too, Hennessy, and I don’t agree with what those people say either. But I do understand it, because I was there once, and so were most of us. Some people refer to it as ‘brainwashing,’ but I use the word ‘indoctrination’ because the kind of beliefs you wrote about are not unlike the beliefs of people in other religions. They too are indoctrinated to have those beliefs.
Fair enough Marildi. It’s true that I lazily use the term ‘Scientology’ to mean the church and everything with it. I used to differentiate between the terms because I spent a large portion of my life in Scientology and had trained and audited, and over time I let go of my belief in “the tech.” Yes, I was indoctrinated too. One of the reasons why I left the church was because I didn’t like the way I saw the Sea Org were living and treated. How can I be there “winning and going free” when I see people not sleeping, eating properly, resting, given ridiculous sales quotas, looking pale and unhappy? We do not survive well, when people around us clearly are not – even when they choose it.
When a certain person I know, reads the Debbie Cook email, The Truth RD, all about the Hole and then dismisses it with “Well, I know that the tech is true and perfect, so I don’t care about those people at the Int Base”, it just bothers me and is difficult to understand like I already said. So yes, it is something that I have to consciously put into perspective like what you said.
Regarding SFN’s post, I read it clear that he/she didn’t want to disclose personal information because his whole life was in “the Scientology pot” and he didn’t want to “lose it all.” If someone has gone all the way up the Bridge trained and audited and then came to the conclusion that it’s a lie, a brainwashing cult and a bag of shit, then obviously they would have to impart personal information as to what their experiences were to make them come to this conclusion. So here we enter into SFN’s right to privacy which ultimately, is more important than defending the technology of Scientology. I don’t think that it was your intention to violate SFN’s right to privacy in any way. I believe that you wanted SFN to point out references that made him/her change her mind on the tech, and have a discussion on that which is fine. It’s just isn’t that simple. I wish it were, but it’s not in this case.
Hennessy, your points are well taken, and as usual you put express yourself in a “theta” way. Thanks!
Yes, I like Hennessy too. Seems to be a bright sort. 🙂
Just to be clear, Marildi….
I did not ever view the church and core scientology to be two separate things in the way you are describing.
I have had the view that the tech and people are 2 different things and that the people are fallible but not the tech. But I was always fully committed to the church and the structure. I was so thoroughly trained in admin and so experienced I fully had the LRH viewpoint on orgs and all policy.
I lived through staff for several decades and lived to tell. CRAZY stuff went on, but as I was trained I could fight back and know that “it was off policy”. (cold comfort at times, but I could cuddle up with “being right”)
I knew that to support LRH was to support the church and be responsible for making it succeed. I wrote KRs on outnesses and tried to do my part. I was never ever going to be Indie.
………
I try to avoid certain specifics as I’m paranoid and UTR. I’m not comfortable with getting into specifics as to how “the tech let me down” or “how I came to my senses”. I’m already worried my descriptions will peg who I am.
…
as for citing references – I’m making comments and trying not to just take over the blog with my own comments, – let alone turning them into a reference laden thing to instruct. There have been some great posts on this blog, wherein references were given and quoted and then tied to the effect of their use and implementation, the ramifications and results, the mindset and activities which followed.
I think those types of articles are very helpful to all. It’s easy to describe scn and its policies and procedures and have people reel back in horror and give you agreement on it being a dangerous cult. What’s a TRICK, and what Mike and Leah have been masterfully handling (I bow bow bow to them) is to illustrate HOW it comes about and impart real understanding to the uninitiated.
To inform and impart understanding is to empower us all to be inclusive and thus be able to do something about it.
It’s easy to stand back and sneer, “those guys are weird”.
Secretfornow: “I have had the view that the tech and people are 2 different things and that the people are fallible but not the tech. But I was always fully committed to the church and the structure. I was so thoroughly trained in admin and so experienced I fully had the LRH viewpoint on orgs and all policy.”
You’ve said it better than I did, but my view is essentially the same, although I don’t go so far as to say the tech is infallible, just that a lot of it is workable and valuable . By “the church” I was referring to management and how they were/are running it, i.e. the “policies” they operate on.
“I try to avoid certain specifics as I’m paranoid and UTR. I’m not comfortable with getting into specifics as to how “the tech let me down” or “how I came to my senses”. I’m already worried my descriptions will peg who I am.”
Okay, thanks. Understood. However, I hope you haven’t allowed yourself to be “indoctrinated” into the mindset of what has become the consensus of opinion on the “interwebs.” I say this because it’s hard for me to believe that you didn’t achieve some significant and lasting gains. Just saying.
“To inform and impart understanding is to empower us all to be inclusive and thus be able to do something about it. It’s easy to stand back and sneer, ‘those guys are weird’.”
I couldn’t agree more. Thanks for all your input. I would say you still have the same impulse that got you into Scientology in the first place with respect to what it was intended to be, at least at the beginning.
marildi, I agree with you that we have some problems in communicating because we don’t always make good distinctions between the various takes on the “tech” and the applied religious philosophy (or whatever you might want to call the more spiritual or sci-fi belief aspects), and the various organizations (or loose confederations, and individuals) that have different approaches to one or both of the first two. Do you have any suggestions to offer?
In the past, there seemed to be some common shorthand for official Scientology such as CoS and even for a while RCS (Radical Corporate Scientology), though those seem to have fallen into disuse. And I personally object to using the term “church” at all to refer to a corporate structure that may only be using religion as an “angle” (as Hubbard referred to it), as I also do to using any of the mocking or snarky alternate spellings. Plus, we now potentially have the FICS (First Independent Church of Scientology) as another confusing variation of both name and approach.
It seems to me that the burden may fall on those who want to distinguish their practice of, or faith in, “core” (as you put it) Scientology to come up with a distinct terminology. While that may not quite be fair, realistically it may be necessary.
I also think you might want to consider using both the terms “indoctrination” with regard to beliefs, and “brainwashing” (or a less loaded term such as “mind control”) with respect to the coercive methods like the RPF used within official Scientology’s organizations.
Would “Dianetics” fill the definition of the core belief?
SFN, thank you. There is nothing in Scientology that is ever worth having your life turned upside down, and losing your family, friends and income. Take care.
Hennessy – we’ve used up the ability to reply to the thread properly – so I’ll use this space to thank you. You have pegged it perfectly with your reply about my UTR situation. Thanks.
I understand your frustration about your friend reading the Cook letter and having all that info and still being unshaken. Does that or does it not also illustrate the HOLD scn can have over our thinking? Un-believable.
But I’m wondering how that person can be onlines and connected to YOU, how can we all be reading this stuff and talking about it?
I spent a billion dollars (or so) on sec checks handling my unfettered internet snoops. Now I stay away. Nope. Haven’t read all the books or watched the programs and never ever go near the interwebs these days….. 🙂
You don’t have to answer, but it piques the curiosity as to how you all can do this and talk about it….
secretfornow, thanks for your kind words and the same to you.
I’ll try to answer your question briefly. The person I referred to is not going on services because of the internet reading which is problematic in the ethics sense to him/her. I’ll just use ‘He.’ He knows that the church cannot be trusted to mete out just ethics actions, like the endless sec-checks that they put people on who admit to reading the Cook email, or about The Hole. Just like what you experienced. This person has enough wisdom to not subject himself to that. This person also saw how I was dealt with by the church and knows he can’t trust it.
However, this same person will talk to other people about doing services within the church and even encourage them to do so. Here is where I ask: ” With everything you know, why would you want to send anyone into that environment?”
Here is where I get the lecture about how LRH gave his life for humanity to give us the tech, etc. Here is where this person will say that he doesn’t care about what goes on with people at the Int Base; that it’s none of our business what they do. Then he shuts down and says that he doesn’t want to talk about “all this stuff.” Until the next time we have the same conversation over again, which inevitably happens. This person also says that he would not go Indie, and will wait until things change in the CoS, or next lifetime.
So yes, it does illustrate a point of indoctrination like Marildi says and what you pointed out too.
I have to make a conscious effort to put my Scientology experience into perspective, and Marildi gave me a reminder of that that today for which I am grateful.
thanks for taking the time to tell me about all of this.
I wonder if your friend would be up for a little reading of “A Piece of Blue Sky”, “Messiah or Madman?’.
All one needs is that first chink in the LRH armor. Being willing and able to hold a viewpoint against the church or its management is an excellent first step away. The key is to show the idol’s feet of clay.
Best wishes and best luck to you.
Secretfornow, regarding the book “A Piece of Blue Sky,” I highly recommend to you a review of it by someone who worked directly with LRH for 6 years, then as a high exec for a few more years, and lastly as a Class 9 auditor in the NOTs HGC at Flag. He (Ken Urquhart) left in 1982 because he could no longer go along with what the CoS had become.
Ken isn’t easy on LRH but has a more balanced view based on firsthand, close-up data, and he counters many of Jon Atack’s “sources.” More importantly, with regard to the tech, Ken’s view is based on thorough study of it (high training) and years of experience as an auditor, as well as having gone up the bridge himself to OT VII. (OT VIII hadn’t been released yet). He doesn’t think the tech perfect or that it is necessarily for everybody, but he does see it as unparalleled in various ways. Here’s the link: http://freezoneearth.org/ivy/bluesky/index.htm
Or, if you want to get a quick, overall idea of his views, have a look at a few short essays on his new blog: http://www.urqbones.com
You should also note that since leaving the Sea Org he has made a living as a field auditor. It is relevant to his perspective and not biting the hand that feeds him. And this is not to disparage him. Ken is a very intelligent and well informed observer of things scientology.
Yes, he audited as an independent for some years, but in his new blog he states that he now only audits Book One occasionally, and his views of LRH and the tech haven’t changed since writing the review of Blue Sky.
I am not sure if you are trying to correct my statement? Are you saying he wrote this review when he was not making his living as a field auditor?
Not at all. I’m saying that his views haven’t changed even though he is no longer making a living as an auditor.
marildi, calling Ken Urquhart more “balanced” than John Atak because Ken worked with Hubbard is a two-fallacy assertion. First fallacy is John doesn’t need to be ‘balanced in his views he need only be correct or logical. The second fallacy is that we wouldn’t be more objective about a man’s written works because we worked with him. Just the opposite.
Rog, by “balanced” view, I meant being willing to look at both the good and the bad. And I don’t think it’s necessarily true that a person wouldn’t be objective about someone he worked with.
Anyway, I think you should read the review before you review it. 😉
marildi, I’m not commenting on Ken Urquhart’s review of John Atak’s book, I am commenting on your comment. It isn’t Atak’s objective to explain his understanding of scientology and let you judge for yourself. His objective is to argue his conclusion: scientology is bad. He employes facts and logic in his arguments. We may disagree with his conclusion but we can’t disagree with facts and logic. He needn’t be “balanced” he need only be correct with the facts and make logical sense.
Roger: “He employes facts and logic in his arguments.”
That is what Ken challenges with regard to much of the book.
Let me rephrase what I wrote in the previous comment: I think you should read Ken’s review before you review my review of Ken’s review.
Ken is free to challenge John and write about it. It doesn’t matter to me as I’m not seeking to understand scientology better or differently. The only thing that matters to me is pointing out your use of illogic to achieve your nefarious aims. I have already proved my points as they are self-evident.
I guess you can’t see how arrogant you come across.
You are wrong when you guess! Know that and live it! Of course I see how I would appear arrogant from your perspective for your perspective is but an object of perception in my mind. Whoops, I DO sound arrogant, don’t I?
Funny and creative! I take it all back. 🙂
edit: Barefaced Messiah… that’s the one I meant
marilidi, as regarding Ken Urquhart, to begin with, he has written something to the effect of “no one alive has the standing to judge Hubbard” so it seems he would be fundamentally unsatisfied with any biographic effort, and is still very much a loyalist – and many in the ex and even indie communities make that same assessment.
On the other hand, Urquhart does admit to what he experienced of the bad side of Hubbard, and holds him responsible for what Scientology has become. That might even be seen as his standing in judgement of Hubbard – and I’ve also noted that others observe that there seems to be an odd inconsistency or contradictoriness in Urquhart’s perspectives on Hubbard.
So while Uruhart does admit the undeniable about Hubbard, which actually puts him ahead of some loyalists who deny even the obvious, it’s not clear that he has the insight or analytical skills to really address who Hubbard was and what he did. Amongst other things, Urquhart had a had a part in some awful things such as the creation of the RPF (including setting some of the specific conditions that even he admits are degrading) and the death of Susan Meister, that he may still be in denial about – and I am not the only one to find him basically unrepentant about what he did or was involved in.
By the way, it’s a mistaken assumption, and a logical fallacy (actually, a combination of several of them, including false authority and appeal to experience) that Urquhart is necessarily a good reporter about Hubbard. It’s well known that people too close to someone or something, are also often blinded because of that closeness – there are a couple of cognitive traps at work in that, including confirmation bias and the continued influence effect.
“De-individuation” techniques allow Ken to quell the otherwise cognitive dissonance he would experience from living so near Hubbard. We all do this to avoid the discomfort of thinking for ourselves.
Chris, “De-individuation” would be something interesting to discuss further when a new topic comes up where it is relevant.
I don’t want to spend too much time on this old topic, but if you’re interested in details, we might also talk about the use of hypnotic techniques. In Urquhart’s case, he reports a couple of odd things that happened when he was with Hubbard, that I immediately recognized as the sort of tricks that a hypnotist would play on suggestible subject. It’s not surprising that someone psychopathic like Hubbard would pick people close to him who were hypnotically suggestible so that they could be readily controlled, and I suspect that Scientology in general tends to select for people who are suggestible and thus most susceptible to Hubbard’s techniques with hypnotic aspects. In Urquhart’s case, I wonder how much he might literally be under Hubbard’s spell – Hubbard did claim early on that he had developed techniques that could “brainwash” people more quickly and more thoroughly than anyone else, and he was clearly at least an accomplished hypnotist and someone who knew how to integrate hypnosis and similar techniques of suggestion into practices.
This also points to one of the other issues that I have with Urquhart as a source, that he doesn’t seem to have done any reading or investigation into what Scientologists call “other practices,” all the things like psychology (not to mention hypnotherapy) and meditation, that would have given him insight into Hubbard’s sources and perspective about his methods. I’ve watched the interviews with Urquhart, and when asked about things like that, he says that he knows nothing about it, and says it in a way that sounds to me like he doesn’t want to know.
PeaceMaker and Chris, what do you think of Ken’s view regarding “Who is so negative?” about Scientology:
“There are three broad classes of people who are sourly negative, whether quietly or not:
“Those who have observed something of Scientology and the C of S at third-hand, from the safety of suburbia or academia without ever exposing themselves to either Scn or the organization.
“Those who had some contact, little or much, with the Scn approach, a contact that made them unhappy; while seeking resolution of an inner condition they felt a possible solution had been denied them. Perhaps they felt a solution was owed them by somebody.
“Those who immersed themselves deeply in Scn and in the organization. Of these, some are rabidly anti; some are respectful of some aspects of LRH and negative about others and on the whole unforgiving of his mistakes.”
http://freezoneearth.org/ivy/35/ken35.html
It’s nice to know that anyone who’s anti-scientology can be so neatly folded into one of your boxes, yet you give multi-layerd answers to anyone questioning LRH and his technology. Almost everyone who comments here us respectful of others opinions, as am I. My objection isn’t necessarily with your view, but with your delivery. You are not the boss of us! I am not allowing you to catigorize me according to what seem to be very narrow views of your own. Please stop trying to make others to see how right you are. We welcome all sorts of opinions. Just stop hitting us over our heads with yours. Please.
I asked “what do you think of Ken’s view?” and then quoted it. Hard to imagine why you object to that “delivery.” Or maybe it isn’t so hard to imagine.
Marildi. You’re clearly the smartest person in the room. You’ve made snide remarks and left handed compliments to several of the commentators here, but they’ve been patient with you, so I will be too. You must have the last word, that’s evident. Be my guest.
Well, it seems to me my snide remarks aren’t as nearly as numerous as the snide remarks made to me. But there we go – eye of the beholder.
marildi, I’ve been working on a serious reply to your question, but since I see that the discussion is proceeding, I want to go ahead at this point and make one observation I had.
You ask about Urquhart’s classification of “sourly negative” people, which seems to presume that anyone who is critical is “sour”. If there’s any other classification of people who at critical, Urquhart doesn’t go into classifying them in his piece, and you haven’t asked a broader question. Sour is a synonym of bitter, and so this smacks of the same sort of accusatory generalization that has Scientology officials categorizing all critical former members as “bitter apostates.”
That’s not a good foot to start off on, and could easily be taken badly, and perhaps even be seen as a loaded question.
“You ask about Urquhart’s classification of ‘sourly negative’ people, which seems to presume that anyone who is critical is ‘sour’.”
It’s just basic grammar that a modifier (e.g. an adjective or, in this case, an adverb) does just that – it modifies or qualifies. So please spare me a reply on the basis that Urquhart was talking about “anyone who is critical.”
marildi, “sour” is an unnecessary adjective used by Urquhart in this context (and grammatically, a compound one), but now you’ve been more specific that you’re effectively asking me to disregard it, which was not clear. And that lack of clarity along with the negative connotations of the adjective, which could be taken as a loaded question assuming that all those negative about Scientology are “sour” or even bitter, might have raised the hackles of others, which is what I was trying to point out.
So, honestly, you asked me what I thought, and in trying to understand Urquhart and accurately answer the question, the first thing I think is that I wonder why he threw “sour” in there.
If Urquhart is referring only to people who “sourly negative”, meaning that he considers that does not apply to everyone who is negative and so there are some who are not sour, then I have to in some way look beyond when Urquhart says in what you quoted to answer your question as it applies to “anyone who is critical.”
But if Urquhart is claiming that all people who are negative as being “sour,” I don’t accept that presumption and have to address why I think he is wrong in order to fully answer your question.
Both of the above involve working around logical pitfalls that are the sort of things that debaters will deliberately set as traps, but assuming that wasn’t your intention, it is again not surprising that the question in combination with the quote might have rubbed people the wrong way.
I have already read through the source of the Uruhart quotation twice in search for some clarity, and quite frankly find it to be a mess of contradictions. Sometimes he seems to write things that could be reconciled by parsing out a position that is largely unstated, such as that besides “sourly critical people” there are people who are merely “critical,” but in other cases the contradictions in his writing seem irreconcilable, and I am not the only one to observe that Urquhart himself seems to suffer from the sort of thing that he likes to refer to as “dichotomies.”
Nonetheless, I’m willing to tackle your question as best I can, if it’s been asked in good faith. It won’t be until sometime tomorrow that I can respond, so if you want to provide any additional clarification in the meantime, that would help.
“So, honestly, you asked me what I thought, and in trying to understand Urquhart and accurately answer the question, the first thing I think is that I wonder why he threw “sour” in there.”
I would say it relates to some of the synonyms for sour:
resentful, rancorous, jaundiced, bitter; nasty, spiteful, irritable, peevish, fractious, cross, crabby, crotchety, cantankerous, disagreeable, petulant, querulous, grumpy, bad-tempered, ill-humored, sullen, surly, sulky, churlish
marilidi, it’s nice that you finally got out the dictionary 🙂
Those synonyms demonstrate that “sour” is indeed a rather judgmental word.
The question still remains, do you think Urquhart is using “sour” because that’s how he views everyone who is negative, or is he using it to classify just some of those who are negative (and presuming that there are people who are negative but not sour)? That significantly effects how I have to answer the question that you posed. Or perhaps Urquhart is a dismayingly unclear starting point for a logical discussion.
I would say Urquhart does consider that some are negative but not sour.
Incidentally, whichever of the two (sour or not) you consider yourself to be, I’m curious how as a never-in you became so involved. You’ve studied a lot of the materials and are very active on the internet. This entails quite a lot of time. What was your initial interest as well as continuing interest and motivation?
marilidi, thanks for that clarification. I now have to go back to Urquhart’s full piece and try once more to understand what he is getting at, since you want me to address all those negative about Scientology, but the quote of his that you provided only categorizes the “sour” ones.
I have never stated what my involvement with Dianetics and Scientology was – or wasn’t. That’s partly on the principle that anecdotal testimony, though widely used in Scientology and cited by both devotees and critics, is not valid evidence of anything. Obviously I don’t have deep enough experience to contribute personal insights to some of the more involved discussions of doctrine and history. Someday when it seems most fitting, I will say more.
I think Uruhart might paint me with the broad brush of “sour,” but that is one of the things that I will disagree with.
marilidi, I’ve been continuing to try to figure out how to properly answer your question. The difficulty now, is you want it to apply to “anyone who is critical,” while the Urquhart quote refers to only those who are “sourly negative.” So I’m trying to figure out how to treat those who would be negative or critical, but not sourly so.
So here is a question I have run up against in addressing that, in trying to figure out what would differentiate between “sourly negative” and merely negative. You can comment on it, which would help, or not, in which case it will stand as part of my answer.
I think it is fair to say that it is an essential element of Hubbard’s approach, and possibly even fundamental to Dianetics and Scientology, that a practice or organization can be criticized and opposed without any direct personal experience of it, that reports of its past abuses can be treated as conclusively indicative of fundamental corruption, and that it can be determined to be so harmful and ill-intentioned that it can be deemed to represent the face of timeless evil itself and a fitting target of dogged opposition. This is of course how the Hubbard and Scientology have approached and treated psychiatry from day one and book one (Dianetics in 1950) going forward.
So should Hubbard and Scientology be classified as “sourly negative” about psychiatry, or just critical?
Peacemaker, that’s a really well thought out question. My answer: Sourly negative. Reason? It seems that there may have been a brief window for Hubbard near the end of WWII when he reached out to the VA for psychiatric help for the whirling dervish which was his mind. Regardless of the reality of that brush with psychiatry, the experience soured him.
PeaceMaker, this is what’s called a Q&A into complexity and, as I’ve said in the past, I’m not interested in a long discucussion.
You’ve given the impression that you personally haven’t had much to do with Scientology, and I was curious why you became so involved and have continued to be. If you don’t want to answer the question, just say so.
marildi, you asked me to answer a question related to Urquhart’s classification of people who are “sourly negative.” And when I asked for some clarification that I felt necessary to answer the question thoroughly, it turns out that you actually want me to answer the question in terms of the expanded category of “everyone critical.” It wasn’t actually a simple question to begin with, and did require some “Q&A”. And your original question didn’t include asking me about my experiences and motivations, as you are referring to now, so it’s too late now to add that complexity to it – if that was your underlying question originally, you should have stated it then.
I have to re-read Urquhart’s main piece one more time to try to understand exactly what he is getting at, and to wrap my head around some things that seem internally contradictory, and that may indeed be logically irreconcilable. It’s interesting, because I think it gives us insight into the mind of a Hubbard loyalist or apologist, or into what kind of mind it takes to hold those positions. I’ll be back with you shortly.
If you did want to answer my question about whether Hubbard and Scientology are “sourly negative” or just “critical” about psychiatry, that would add to the discussion and perhaps give me a bit of additional insight into how to answer the question, but I can wrap up without it.
I responded to this Newcomer comment – did it get lost somehow?
I agree with SFN. Now scientology itself is not the mood of few money motivated son of a bitch who now control the church.
I experienced many of the things you have mentioned at different times in my 30 years in Scn. Some of it was genuine, some not.
I would also mention that woven through all this is Scn, the subject and practice, itself. Would I’ve been friends with these people if it were not for Scn – probably not.
All it takes nowadays is the slightest of disagreement with church actions or policy, and watch all the great things you mentioned melt away. So, was it real? Or was it pretense?
But I don’t agree with general statements strung together which…end up giving the impression that scientologists are some other species and just a bunch of assholes. They’re NOT.
You are treated that way because you are, or have the apparency of being, “onboard”. What passes for love or compassion in scientology is arguably conditional. All or nothing. Their terms. That’s pretty asshole-ish, don’t you think? I was an asshole too and often treated those who weren’t onboard, those who refused to get onboard and those who were critical, as subhuman scum. It’s not exclusive to the Co$, btw. MS2 and various indies have slated Marty, Mike and others for the exact same reasons.
Hubbard said only the tigers survive but perhaps he really meant assholes. Does scientology create assholes, or does it amplify an inherent assholiness, lying dormant, waiting to be triggered? Either way, the first step to recovery is recognition.
“You are treated that way because you are, or have the apparency of being, “onboard”.”
I don’t know if this was directed to me, to mean that I am treated that way and have the apparency of being onboard…..
If I’m misunderstanding just ignore this. If not, let me be clear that I am NOT on board with any aspect of scn, start to finish. I don’t feel like I’m treated badly for having been in.
I’ve disavowed every part of it. 100%. Not ONE shred of good. I burnt or threw away everything I owned from Scn. (except some “evidence”)
I remember all the wins, how I felt, all the ways I was devout and thought it was all wonderful etc.
Now I know it was all hogwash and delusional. I don’t have any answers, but I do have the experiences and can describe them and what the mindsets were for me and for those about me at the time.
Every single day I take heart from the fact that it’s over for me. Even surrounded by it, it’s over for ME. I am heartened by that one and only certainty.
According to Edmund O Wilson http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/edward-o-wilsons-new-take-on-human-nature-160810520/ , love is a big part of what makes us human.
Sociopaths and narcissistic personality disorder sufferers like Hubbard cannot really grasp what it means. They just don’t feel it, so whatever “love” behaviors they may exhibit are purely for the purpose of manipulation of others.
They don’t feel it, they don’t understand it really, but they know it can be used as a powerful tool to get what they want. Hubbard’s works are full of this kind of manipulative coercion. What is disconnection but a method to use the natural affections of relatives as a tool to enforce compliance?
What is at the top of the “Emotional Tone Scale”? Tone 40, “Serenity of Beingness”. But at Tone 40 you are supposed to be able to demand instant compliance from another and get it. That is what they are drilling when they are “shouting at the ash tray”. How to put an intention or command into someone so forcefully that they comply without even questioning or thinking. That was the ultimate “affinity” for Hubbard, the highest level, pure love. It seems more like the “50 Shades of Grey” than what a normal person would call love.
But for Hubbard and others in the narcissistic personality disorder class that is the purest truest love they can imagine. All them, no you.
Excellent post, Bruce. I absolutely agree.
Great post Terra. I wrote a song recently about this Scientology lack of love. I need to do better vocals. I’ll post it when I’m done.
It’s called: If There’s No Love What’s The Use.
I believe the organization is a shadow of the person who created it. It’s imprinted with their attitudes, emotions (or lack of), thoughts and energy.
I believe Ron had a problem feeling. Empathy and love were not his qualities.
He was dominated by fear of being seen for who he was; that’s why he lied so much about himself. He was the opposite of cause. He was totally insecure.
He also had a persecution complex; that is why Scientology has so many enemies.
Emotionally Ron was a basket case. Actually he was probably certifiable.
I give you: love and understanding is a Marcab conspiracy
Strip away Ron’s fame and stature and imagine any old Joe off the street saying,” love and understanding is a Marcab conspiracy.” Or “psychiatrist’s are from the planet Farsec.”
And then explain to you that Marcabs are an invader force from outer space.
And how all psychiatrists are the reason for all the evil on earth and that they had a home planet.
What would you think of a person who had these type of thoughts running in their heads?
I think the only difference between Ron and the homeless guy talking to invisible people walking down the street is that Ron was functional.
But if we unpack both the homeless person and Ron under scrutiny they would both have similarities.
I’ve been thinking this thought lately in my meditations and neutralizing some imprints:
The man who I, at one time, opened my mind to was a raving loon. I allowed a raving loon to enter my mind with a doctrine of lunacy.
I am working diligently at the extracting any vestiges of that imprint. Being in for 11 years from a youth means that my poor brain still has some left overs.
Think about it. Ron’s capacity for love was extremely damaged. His family life was totally dysfunctional:
Kids in chain lockers
Hated Nibs
Pistol whips Sara
Quintin suicide
Claims to not know Alexa
Stole daughter and went to Cuba
Painted x wife as a hussy
Betrays Mary Sue like she was used up meat
RPF punishment, reprogramming
All critics are criminals
All psychiatrists are rapers and molesters
Scientology is our last hope
All other attempts at spiritual life are from an implant.
Sometimes I do not think we truly understand the scope and depths of Ron’s insanity.
Just think of any common person saying these things and doing these things. We would walk on the other side of the street when we saw them coming.
Ron was certifiable my friends. Strait up!
L Ron Hubbard punished children – threw them in the Chain Locker on his stupid Ship – whilst running away from the law -because he BROKE it and was a wanted criminal.
David Miscavige forces ABORTION and puts human beings in the HOLE.
Scientology – if it ain’t cruel and inhumane – it is not KSW
Yep! Hubbard was certifiable….he was also one of the biggest assholes on Earth.
Geez. You’ve placed it into a context that is hard to argue against. Well-reasoned and expressed, Brian.
Terra Cognita nails their 95 feces to the Co$ door, again. The best line for me was “Scientology is every Scientologist’s first love. People, not so much.”
People come and go, but the indoctrination of $cientology is supposed to last many lifetimes. What does it say when that indoctrination doesn’t last a year? Only 5% of those who ever enter any $cieno life ever make it to OT 3. Even fewer reach the top of the bridge, OT 8. And most of the old time OT 8s have escaped too. No one actually reads Dianetics. Everything is KSW, not love your neighbor or your family.
Love eventually does find a way.
Terra Cognita, How are you still not declared? Do they not know who you are? Or do they know, but have some other reason for laying off?
Terra Cognita, since you are UTR and like writing articles, how about you go into some orgs and report back to us as to what is happening in PT? How many people on course or in auditing? What piece of Bridge is having to be re-done again, How the GAT is going? We need intel.
HGC: I have no idea!
I have to agree that love and compassion have been stomped out of the organization as a Church and the people on staff or in the sea org. The higher they are in rank, the worse it gets. DM at the top, a raving megalomaniac. The almighty “stat” rules every decision, not ethics as LRH taught. And the ethics officer runs the ORG with conditions. The Executive Director better watch out.
On the other hand I still know the tech works. I have had wins win ex-scientologists. It’s just so hard to find them.
>Many develop ridged
it’s “rigid” as in stiff, inflexible or hard. Ridged refers to things like mountain ridges – a narrow ledge of land, or the edge of a boundary.
Oops.
Yup, you said it TC. This is a loveless, compassion-free religion. It will tear apart families and friends without remorse.
Tells you a lot about it’s so-called CAUSE. Clearing the planet? Yea, right.
This is a bit off-topic, but McCarran, I think I heard someone mention a few weeks ago that you’re Mary Kahn who was on Leah’s and Mike’s Aftermath show on A&E (my apologies if I’m mistaken). But I re-watched episode three last night, and I just want to say that as a never-in, two things that happened when you told your story really hit me like a ton of bricks.
Before I watched this episode, I felt sorry for and had a ton of compassion for the stories I was beginning to learn about, but before this episode with you, it was always in the back of my mind that I was thinking “how can anyone who seems so good and decent and genuine and intelligent keep subjecting themselves to this stuff”? But after re-watching Episode 3 last night, I remembered of two things that happened in this particular episode of the show when I first watched it as it originally aired, both of which really stopped me from thinking that way:
1. You made a comment that when you mentioned to your husband that you were having doubts, that the church called you in and you went into a room and they were demanding you grab the cans. You made a comment that you realized at that time that “they owned me”. That really hit me hard and brought me to the realization that many people feel trapped, with no way to escape.
2. A little later in the show, I remembered seeing the devastation on your face and hearing the extreme pain in your voice when you were talking about how for the past several years, all you could think about was saving your family, which is why you kept going along with things. In addition to seeing the raw emotions that you went through and were stilling going through, Mike ended up breaking down in tears as well from hearing your story, and at that particular point, I realized that it doesn’t matter “how anyone can keep doing this”. Seeing you and Mike in obvious emotional pain stopped those thoughts, and the only thing that mattered from that point on is that it was abundantly clear that this church was to blame, not you or anyone else who had left.
I realized at that moment, that before I saw this episode, I was actually engaging in a bit of “blaming the victim” by even questioning how anyone could stay in. I was basically thinking the same way that some morons do when they say stupid stuff like “well, if a woman doesn’t want to be raped, she shouldn’t dress so provocatively”…..and I felt like a real asshole for previously even thinking to myself “how can these people keep going on with Scientology after all of this”. The need to save your family, the corruption of the truth that the church places on you, the way this organization takes advantage of people who are truly trying to do the right thing and help other people…….the fault doesn’t lie with anyone who was a part of this organization, the fault lies with the policies of LRH and DM, the structure of the organization itself, and the beliefs and attitudes that the philosophy of Scientology slowly indoctrinate into their victims.
Your story got me emotionally invested into learning the dangers of Scientology. Even though I don’t see myself ever seeking out this so-called “church” for help, this exposure to the dangers of this cult and the devastation they can bring to a person’s life has surely saved many others from signing up. That’s why these stories are so important. And that’s why (if I’m not mistaken that you’re Mary Kahn) I wanted to thank you and let you know that what you and Mike and many others are doing by exposing these abusive practices are really making a difference and bringing understanding to us never-ins that this isn’t just some “weird, exclusive, celebrity religion”, but that this is actually an extremely harmful organization.
It’s not right to question (or even blame) the victims of this group. It’s not right to judge any former or current members for how they continue to subject themselves to this abuse. It’s not just a group and an issue to jokingly make fun of anymore……because it’s no longer a laughing matter. Thank you for bringing me (and I’m sure many other never-ins) to that realization.
In case Mary doesnt see this, McCarran IS Mary Kahn who appeared on the Aftermath.
Your comment is wonderful Thank you.
Great Post McCarran.
When FLAG FLEECED ME out of hundreds of thousands of dollars and I was BI’s after I got home – the Staff said to me “What did you do that for”?
Flag Land Base in Clearwater Floriday – Scientology’s Mecca of Criminality – is cruel and inhumane.
I was manipulated and deceived by a mind controlling, manipulating and lying EVIL CULT.
Mind control was used and pressure from peers to DONATE ALL OF MY MONEY. I was trapped at Flag. They kept me there for weeks – not allowing me to go into session until I donated sufficient funds for my out ethics – filing Bankruptcy from Buying Scientology Shit.
They put me in rooms showing me propaganda – doom and gloom videos of how the World was going to hell in a hand basket and I had to do something about it.
The fear in Scientology is sold to me by the REAL Merchants of Chaos and Fear –
$cientology!
WOW………….that is insane & I’m glad you are outta there!!!!
IM, first, glad you got out. Sorry they brow beat and took your money. EVERYONE needs to realize that nothing good can come from being a member of the cult. Absolutely nothing…
Thank you Mike Roberts. Your comment has touched me beyond words – to tears actually. I am very happy to hear that my episode had this kind of impact on you.
While filming, I referred to what happened to me as a “spiritual sodomizing.” I know this is over-the-top for some but the church gets people to do things that they wouldn’t normally do, whether it’s as simple as doing a course or subjecting themselves to a very cruel sec checking, or disconnecting from friends or loved ones or maybe even committing felony assault. I had allowed myself to be demeaned to the point of breaking. That was the only reason I came to say, “No. I won’t hold the cans.” Some people break sooner than others.
Your initial response is understandable. It’s what many well-intentioned people think about the power of choice. I am very happy that you, myself and others have come to see that we unwittingly lost our power of choice.
Mary Kahn, you are stronger than you thought you were…..it tore your heart out, and still does, I am sure to think of leaving your “baby” behind so your could free the rest of your family of the emotional and physical abuses going on.
Not easy to walk away, with nothing, from everything you’ve lived with for so many decades, all the time, effort and money gone down the drain for something you truly believed in only to finally realize the truth.
You escape with DIGNITY intact and nothing anyone can do can take that away from you. Someone whose grown up in this, where the parent is NOT in full control of their own child, the organization has become the parental authority figure and you are pushed aside in your own child’s life.
A sad fact of life is that sometimes you can’t save someone, you can only save yourself.
I pray that Sammy wakes up one day, the same with Taryn and Benjamin, that they all somehow down the road realize what’s going on and they come home to all of you.
Stay strong Mary Kahn….the best is yet to be….
Thanks Mary. My hope is that all of the other people who have recently become interested in this topic and have never been in Scientology, meaning none of us will ever be able to fully comprehend how difficult things are for former members, will not judge people who stayed in even after deciding it was no longer for them.
We never-ins need to try to understand that things aren’t as simple as they seem when trying to escape this particular cult. I’m afraid that many never-ins tend to use our own never-in frames of reference (and sometimes be bit too self-righteous) and think things like “well, if I want to leave my [Christian] church, I’d just get up and walk out and tell them to stuff it!” Yeah, we can do that in our other typical religions pretty easily.
However, there are many other considerations that Scientologists have to take into account when they decide to finally leave this religion, things that we never-ins may try to learn about, but that we will never truly understand the emotional difficulties that former members like you had to consider.
I hope that Sammy will come home very soon for you and David.
Terra, thank you for once again touching upon this all important subject. We can quote literature from the Bible, Quran, Shakespeare, etcera,; however I am of the opinion that we learn by example. This has devastating meaning for families (the few intact that remain ) in scientology. These “born intos” have markedly less chance than the average of marrying for love than for mere physical attraction. Of course physical pull has an important role in almost all partner relationships, but understanding, compassion, empathy and love are invaluable to successfully living. If this second, third and maybe forth generation of scientologists are being exposed to disconnection, lack of compassion, no PDA’s, purposeful disregard of those less fortunate and only worship of a cold distant promise of something that’s just around the corner, what kind of chance do these people have in the real world? Those of you who took psychology 101 must remember the experiment with the infant monkey given only a cloth “mother”. As an adolescent it was aggressive, detached from any societal contact and unable to feel the identification usually present within this group. The parents may do their best to reach their children, but from generation to generation those on staff are not able to teach the children about love by example if there is no time. I grew up in a household with little love and even though I’ve spent many years digging around inside myself, I’m not sure I found it in a partnership. I love my kids and I know they know that, but I believe I’m woefully deficient in my marriage. That’s unkind, unfair and potentially devastating to my partner. Thankfully I’m not referring to myself, but perhaps to many of the younger generations in the cult. I sincerely hope it’s not the case, but I can’t see how everyone escaped it. I worry about members who will be suddenly dumped in a place where values are far different than the dry-as-toast, distant, looking for the next high they’re used to. Sound familiar? Addiction wears the same face as Scientology. One reason it’s so hard to leave. We have a society that’s imperfect, lacking and sometimes downright ugly, it’s true, but so many try to improve circumstances for others as well as themselves. To those of you who have found love and compassion, empathy and real connection whether in or out thank goodness for you.
Unfortunately, this is a very accurate essay. Well done Terra. There is lot of unsavory conduct coming from the members of Scientology and this negative trait of human behavior underlies all of them. The Church of Scientology really isn’t a nice place at all, it treats people terribly.
I have only two things to say from my perspective on this broad distasteful subject and the first is about Hubbard as a person. He professes to be a military man with active service. It has come to light after extensive research that his service record are bogus. There is a camaraderie and for the want of a better word, ‘love’ of the fellow beside you in the military that Hubbard never wrote or spoke about personally that I ever noticed. I can only conclude with the now available evidence he never experienced that, ie he never put the safety and well being of his comrades before his own. Not just talk about the phenomena, but actually experience it by doing it. It’s quite an eye opener to come to terms with that within a group you’d just expect it to be in with all the battles they say they are fighting. But it is not there in any way, shape or form, but you sort of natively expect it to occur because of you and your group members hard work and efforts. It just never comes no matter how much you desire or give it to the group yourself. It’s just a loveless blank slate in the Cof$!
The second is a technical aspect, which is difficult to explain but I found his work on the R6 bank and GPMs etc fascinating and think there is some merit to it but the whole subject is cut short by the heavy concentration on how bad it all is. The reason a being gets involved with so much opposition is fundamentally based on their desires, love and compassion. That’s at the bottom of or before the beginning of any chain. There’s a lot more to “aesthetics” than just a clinical wavelength explanation. Not to technically recognize that love and compassion plays an integral part and give it a bit more “airplay” is cold and heartless. Being clinical does have its place but it is not the right way to treat people, especially as a reverse flow for their love and devotion. Hubbard fucked up badly in that aspect. He was not only a terrible officer but a selfish one.
Mike – this comment should probably come under the heading of ‘new thread’…..
I have been catching up with the ‘Underground d Bunker’ and wonder if you had seen last week’s post regarding Brandon Reisdorf? That poor kid!
The depths to which CoS will go to make a person’s life miserable, is just beyond belief (which, by the way, I am halfway through reading).
The main reason I bring this up, is to make sure there are “eyes” on L.A. law enforcement and the justice system to ensure they do right by Brandon and his family and to protect his First Amendment rights.
Please also let the family know that ‘we’ ( those of us out here in the world) are bigger than CoS and not afraid and if the Reisdorf’s need to start a Go Fund Me page to help with legal expenses to fight for Brandon, I’ll be the first to donate.
Yes, let’s help the Reisdorfs. I agree. They should start a go fund me page. I will contribute.
Agreed. I would happily contribute as well.
Buckeye, I’m Brandon’s father and want to thank you very much for your kind words and the offer of assistance. Both are truly appreciated.
As is well known now, Brandon had a meltdown and threw a hammer thru a window of Big Blue (LA Org) at 2am when no one was around. No one was injured and no intent to harm anyone was made. Brandon had no previous displays of any violence throughout his entire life. I don’t think he even had the odd fight in school (quite common in my day in Junior HS and HS). The church pushed the DA’s office to prosecute to the max. As one LAPD investigator told Lois and me, they were out for blood.
Lois and I had no idea that this occurred until we were contacted by a producer of 20/20 asking if we were doing OK, later in the day. We had no idea why he asked such a question. It turned out that OSA had contacted 20/20 and we already spouting that “an arrest was eminent”. We feel that they were fully ready to use this to stop Lois speaking out on the show. It didn’t stop her.
Lois did write on Mike’s blog exactly what transpired but the point I wanted to make is that the cult was and since I know so well how they work, are still doing whatever they can to see Brandon behind bars. I am 100% sure that OSA have an order from DM to see that Brandon is ruined. To see him behind bars or in a mental facility. This isn’t about a hammer thru their window, but it is about revenge. Revenge originally towards Lois for speaking out and now includes Brandon for expressing his 1st amendment rights. And since DM is the “new LRH” his orders are as if they are coming from God and must be followed.
Brandon was self employed when the incident occurred. He was part owner of a company that had been working on some deals that never resulted in pay in over a year’s work. It was just before his breakdown that the company basically fell apart and a few months earlier, he lost his brother to disconnection. Also, a few months earlier, because he would not disconnect from Lois, his brother and me, he got declare SP and he lost about 40 or 50 “friends” from the San Diego Org. All unfriended on FB and no longer talking to him. Additionally, he was coerced into donating $60,000 to a building with money he did not have. All of this was a bit too much for a young man to bear.
We did hire an attorney to defend Brandon but I believe the cult was so heavily pressuring the DA for revenge (“justice”), he ended up with the felony. I often see on TV, far worse crimes being committed in the US, that are either dismissed or reduced to a Misdemeanor and it saddens me that the cult has so much influence. The fact that the cult was considered by the courts as a “house of worship” also sickens me. The only thing they worship is money, the founder that was a Sci-Fi writer and has been dead for 3 decades and of course DM, their maniacal, current leader. The cult do not worship a God and since my indoctrination to SCN since birth, in 1953, I have never seen ANYONE worship any God or form of God. For our attorney to have taken up a different angle and to try to prove that this cult was not a church and this was not a place of worship, I believe would have been far beyond his scope of knowledge of the cult as well as it probably would have costs us to a point of having to sell our home to pay legal fees. And it probably would have been a lost cause.
We are still quite worried about the “Dirty Tricks” (nice way of saying harmful, illegal acts) that the church may do to Brandon. We have instituted a GPS system to monitor everywhere he goes in case the cult tries to frame him by claiming he violated his Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and got too close to a “church”. Believe me, the last thing he wants to do is be near one of these buildings. We have also set up motion-sensor lights and cameras to monitor anyone from the cult that could come by to cause problems. It also adds further proof of Brandon’s movements as it records anyone entering or leaving the home.
It is quite sad that we have to go to these extremes to prevent a “church” from further harming our son. While in court the cult lied that Brandon violated his TRO and visited the Orange County Org which was a complete lie. It’s odd that they reported this lie to the judge and her response was that “we could have had you back in jail” over doing this but are not pursuing that avenue at this time. I contend that is because the cult had absolutely ZERO, manufactured evidence that Brandon did this and so therefore asked that the court not take the matter further than just a warning. It probably made them seem as if they were being compassionate, whereas they were just covering their lies by asking to not pursue the matter further.
We know that Brandon wants nothing more than to pay us back for the legal fees and penalties that we have paid on his behalf. We are not pressuring him for payment and know he will pay us when he is able. He is a responsible person and intends to repay us. We will leave it up to him if he wishes to utilize the Go Fund Me program to assist in this matter and to help relieve his future financial burden, especially when he is starting over again. Just from this post, I see that there are so many kind and compassionate people in this world. It is actually quite touching.
Terra Incognita writes today of the lack of compassion that the cult engrains into their practices. The lack of compassion is more than demonstrated with the way they treated Brandon. And further, the wonderful people that have heard Brandon’s story and gave him such support and love,strangers from Facebook, The Bunker and this site, shows such a high level of compassion, it utterly amazes me. It is something SCN should consider adding to their doctrines. I doubt that will ever happen however.
CPO : I am deeply touched that you took the time to respond…and so eloquently. I’m a Mom too, with a grown son. As parents, we’ll do anything we can to ease their life’s journey.
I am happy to note the hope in your ‘voice’ and the realization that there are good people in this world. Please let Brandon know that the past CAN be left behind, as long as you are willing to look forward to, and work towards, a new beginning. With the support of a loving family and good friends, a brighter future can be attained.
If your family decides to reach out for monetary help, rest assured there are plenty of ” newly outs” and “never ins” willing to lend a hand.
You sound like an excellent Mom, OB! Thanks for the encouragement and support. If Brandon decides on moving forward with a Fund Me type of program, he will make it broadly known and I foresee a great amount of support from all of the great ex’s and never-ins.
You would be surprised how many people reached out to Brandon on Facebook after the Aftermath show. Some compassionate people out there!
Should Brandon decide to start a fund to help defray legal fees and recoup some of the money he was coerced into giving Scientology, I would be honored to help. It would also be another vehicle for people not familiar with this cult to read Brandon’s story. I am so glad you are taking every precaution to try to protect your sweet son as we know Scn will stop at nothing and appears to have very long arms of influence.
Thank you so much TT! I really appreciate the support and kind words.
Great idea however if I may suggest GoFundMe is expensive they take a cut. We use (in our family) this one that is “FREE” you get all the donated funds: https://www.youcaring.com/
Just my .02 cents worth. Thank you all for all you do! (((hugs)))
Thanks RedShoe. I’ll pass that on to Brandon.
Anything we can do to help the Reisdorf family will be done if Brandon will allow. We here , and obviously elsewhere, aren’t just willing ourselves. We’re happy and joyous at the thought of helping him. He did what so many of us fantasize about. I know it’s not the right thing to do, but Brandon is taking the hit for all of us who have been injured by COS. Make no mistake CPO, whether in or out we’ve all been affected in some way. So happy to help Brandon. Let us know and be safe.
Thanks so much Barbara. I think because of the encouragement Brandon has seen on this sight that he plans on launching a fund raising campaign soon. We really appreciate the support.
This is a great idea (although I like RedShoeLady’s idea of using a free organization who doesn’t take a cut of the proceeds even more).
For Brandon (and Gary and Lois), many people need help but are afraid to actually ask for it for a number of reasons, including possibly guilt. But please understand, that by setting up this legal defense fund, it’s not just us wanting to help you, but we also are asking you to help us as well. Let me explain.
Most people want to do what they can to help others. That desire is particularly palpable for the newer folks like me who are just learning about these issues. However, many of us don’t really know what we can do to make good, concrete progress in this fight against this destructive organization (and this is especially true for us never-ins). We can call and write our representatives, call and pressure the FBI’s Tampa office about their planned presentation with CoS about human trafficking, etc. But many of us feel a bit helpless when it comes to figuring out what we can do to actually make a real difference and to help others who have been abused by this so-called “church” be able to stand up to them.
So yes, it may be that a lot of us want to help Brandon, but if Brandon sets up a fund to help with the legal expenses, he would actually be helping us by giving us a way to meaningfully contribute in ways that can help counter-act the abusive practices of CoS.
It’s the same with Phil Jones’ “Call Me” billboard campaign that many people on Tony Ortega’s site helped fund. It gave us a way to actually contribute to a good cause against an evil cult, instead of just writing letters and making phone calls. Brandon would actually be helping us find a way to feel like we can make an actual difference in this fight against the abuses of CoS. It would mean just as much for us as it would for him, so don’t let “guilt” or anything else get in the way. We’re actually asking him to help us.
Thanks for your encouragement and providing an understanding that would help motivate Brandon to move forward with this campaign. There are so many caring people in this fight against evil with you being one of them.
Sorry for the late response to your posting.
One of the actions that you are expected to be able to do as a Scientologist is to pull back all your affinity, love and friendship for any other person ON A DIME at any time you are told to (and concurrently with that action believe any vicious lie about them that you are told to justify that action) and yes, this even includes your mothers, fathers, children and brothers and sisters, as well as long time close friends … thus while there is certainly love and friendship when in Scientology, one is expected to abandon either or both on command as part of one’s commitment to the greater goal of the church … and dat’s the name of dat tune, brothers nd sisters! (and as for a Scientologist showing compassion to anyone who is suffering from any of life’s downsides including sickness, age, hunger, extreme poverty, etc … you’re kidding, right?)
In my opinion, this is the crux of the matter.
Thanks TC about time this subject is discussed.
As I was deprogramming myself thanks to Tony and Mike, I started to realize that the emotional tone scale was purposefully booby trapped. The emotions of compassion, empathy and love were missing. And sympathy was vilified. Hubbard clearly presented concepts and scales that appeared to be useful until you dig deeper and find that he purposefully would leave out or add something that made the whole concept useless and dangerous as a form of mental entrapment.
The denigration of love as an emotion and deeper form of positive spiritual expression was purposeful and evil. In fact Hubbard loved no one and was a narcissist. And that’s the kind of people who are still in Scientology. Nothing is more important than MY ETERNITY. We hear that over and over again as members disconnect from family members and close friends.
And interesting that Hubbard never once said to group members, I love you all. In all other religions and spiritual pursuits learning to truly love is a key element.
Scientology does not make a better world, it makes people who become self-centered desperate haters. And their accusations to critics is that we are all hate mongers trying to destroy scientologists freedom of religion. This is a key element that is causing Scientology to implode.
I’ve wondered about the logic (or rather, the lack of logic) behind the Sea Org’s policy of discouraging their members from having children, even to the point it used to be that they would expect them and try to coerce them to have abortions, until Claire Headley apparently exposed that unthinkable practice and the church back-pedaled big-time due to the very bad PR, from my understanding. Now they are told they have to leave the Sea Org to raise their children up to a certain age, which still seems to discourage them from having children, knowing they’re going to lose their “room and board”. Perhaps I’m mistaken on some of this.
But overall, it seemed to me that this church, especially with its plummeting membership, would actually WANT its most loyal members (the “clergy”) to have children and to have those children raised into the Sea Org, giving them future generations of loyal LRH disciples. I couldn’t understand why they would consider this practice of discouraging mothers from having children, which would seem to practically “breed themselves out of existence” (to put it bluntly). Until Terra’s explanation here that is, which might explain some things.
Perhaps the church’s main concern is the knowledge that a parent, especially a mother, would actually experience true, unconditional love after having her child. I mean no offense against any fathers who most certainly also love their children unconditionally (I’m one of them), but after my wife gave birth to our two children, it was obvious to me that there is an extremely special bond that mothers have with their own children, particularly in the months and years after bringing them life into this world. And this isn’t a love that “slowly develops over time”, it is immediate, in the most literal sense of the word.
That motherly love was one of the main reasons that Leah Remini left the church, according to her book, Troublemaker. She simply didn’t want her child to be raised in the church, where she would be consistently pressured to persuade her child to join the Sea Org and deal with the life that Leah dealt with after joining the SO as a child. From some of the articles I’ve read, this was the main reason Katie Holmes left with Suri as well, to prevent Cruise from getting their daughter indoctrinated into this way of thinking.
So perhaps CoS is concerned that a mother, after giving birth, would develop this unbreakable bond with her child after giving birth, where the mother would begin to imagine a wonderful life for her child, which would then start to break down the “church first” mentality of these new mothers, who would fear being able to only see their child very rarely, to allow their child to be raised by other church volunteers, and the crippling concern that their child might one day be forced to join the ranks of the Sea Org, where they would be lost to them (either through posting them in another location, or worse, potential disconnection). If the mother “wakes up” thanks to her new-born “miracle of life”, not only would the church lose their “future generations”, but very likely even the mother herself (and perhaps the father as well).
Maybe I’m wrong in all of this, but if love and compassion don’t exist in Scientology (which those two don’t seem to be even remotely compatible with this so-called “church” and this overall philosophy), then the church has obviously learned of the loving, compassionate, and fiercely protective nature that new mothers have for their new-born children. And even though mothers in the church have ended up disconnecting from their own children, I believe that this bond, at least on some level, stays with them for life (which gives me hope). That must be the risk that the church simply can’t take with its Sea Org members. This lack of love and compassion in a so-called “church” truly boggles the mind of this never-in parent of young children.
The “no child” policy for the Sea Org was a short term view. As is so much that is done in scientology.
Miscavige considered the children to be a hindrance to parents and their dedication to the job 24/7. He also considered they were a waste of money to have to support.
And he personally did not want to have children. He expressed this view many times. “You cannot control what your child is going to be like — what if I had a kid who was an SP?” He stated that one only had to look at LRH’s children to see how it could go very wrong.
In scientology, if something is not important to Miscavige, it is not important to anyone.
Thanks for the information Mike, especially as it relates to David Miscavige’s thoughts about the no child policy. Perhaps if he would have had children of his own, he might have had his own realization of the importance of keeping your family intact……though how he dealt with his own father and brother (as I read in the books Ruthless and Beyond Belief), I wouldn’t hold out much hope of that even being a remote possibility in his own version of “reality”. His mind-set seems to be pretty much warped beyond repair.
Hubbard had lots of children, and it didn’t seem to help him realize the importance of keeping family intact. For those of us who are childless, our nieces and nephews are the closest thing we have to children and to a genetic legacy. Look at how Miscavige cared for his niece Jenna. Yikes.
What if DM’s father & mother felt that having a child was a hindrance to them and a waste of money….he wouldn’t be here…..then again…. LOOK how David M turned out…..”just sayin'”
Through the L Con Hubbard teachings shown in this essay one can see how he created a philosophy of hate rather than one of “knowing how to know”, the false definition given by L. Fraud for what scientology was.
These core teachings is why Hubbard was so corrupt and why his “church” is one of destruction and hate towards humanity.
Beware of those who would defend and or promote Hubbard’s work as good. They are either still brainwashed, for lack of a better term, or they ARE in agreement with that hate and destruction he promulgated.
On the subject of disconnection, my experience when my son disconnected from us and also what I’ve read on various websites – the brainwashing consists of having still-ins realise they are not disconnecting. No, they are not the cause point. The people they are disconnecting from are in fact rather ‘abandoning’ them. It’s all reversed. My son informed me I was abandoning him. I was the cause point of the fracture in our relations. All I had to do was steps A to E and it would all be sunshine and koolaid just like in the good old days. To him it was so simple that I do this, that my refusal was obviously a desire to abandon him.
Yes, this is an excellent point. It probably deserves a posting all of its own.
Out of curiosity Mike, and I know this would never happen, but hypothetically if someone like you wanted to rejoin the church and were willing to do these A to E steps or anything else, do you think CoS would still allow you to rejoin after going through these steps, so you can “save your eternity” as they call it or whatever? Or have you done what they consider to be “so much damage to the church” with your show, blogs, interviews, etc., that there would never be hope of you being allowed back in, and they are just out to utterly destroy you out of spite, regardless of whether you would want to rejoin? If the latter, that would be very revealing of how truly uncaring this church is for the people of “this planet” (the former would be very revealing of their utter hypocrisy of their version of “the truth” as well). Just curious about that…..
No, I would never be allowed back.
Hubbard decreed in the early 80’s that there were certain people who were not just to be declared, they were to be excommunicated and were never to be allowed to benefit from scientology in this or ANY FUTURE lifetimes.
I am now one of those. It’s sort of amusing he thought that he would always be able to control who did or did not have access to scientology. A concept that stands in stark contradiction to what he wrote in My Philosophy. Ah well, not the most dramatic contradiction, but relevant here…
Yes Mike. Lois, Gale, DeDe and myself are all in this same category as you. It is above the normal badge of being declared – we’re exceptional SPs and proud of it.
I have so many things to thank DM for. Kicking us out in ’82 and further making sure I never have to take part in their bogus religion again. Thanks Dave!
Aren’t most of us on this blog, “one of those?”
Yeah, I think so.
I also think that most on the blog are BIG SPs. Being on TV like Lois, testifying against the church like my sister DeDe and quoted in a couple of books like my other sister Gale, kind of adds a few stripes to our SP badge though.
Damn, I hang around a lot of SPs….
I’m a “never in” but hope I too can label myself “SP” proudly wondering if I can get a vinyl decal for my car’s rear window made with those letters? It might make some think I’m from SPAIN but those in the “know” would understand what it means. Or maybe a bumper sticker “Honk If You’re an SP” ???
RedShoeLady, I love that idea.. I want one too!! Lol
Being an SP, my new definition:
Thinking for myself, investigating anything, anytime, anywhere with anyone about anything.
And…… not needing aproval from anyone to do that investigation.
We are free. That’s what is was all about.
If you use a computer without restrictions you qualify as an SP.
I am a never in & would be proud to be called a SP. Especially if means being in this group. Mike, I am proud to stand up next to you & Leah. I could care less what DM thinks about me!! All of you SPs inspire me! Keep going forward one day at a time & know people are praying for you.
Spoken like someone with a mind of their own.
Just in case anyone is wondering if they are on the Will Never be Allowed Back List, try this simple excercise. Write to the IJC and the CJC and see if you get a response. If you never do, then there’s your answer. You are dead to them. The end.
Tori Christman talks about this. She wrote to them for years, not one response in return.
But to write to the IJC to find out this data would mean that I would give a shit if they would ever let me in. In fact, I’m extremely content with the thought that they will never allow me in and I’ll stick with that idea. I also wont write to anyone in Jehovah’s Witness or the KKK to find out if they will let me in.
Yay!
A wise decision 🙂
MIke – I’m not familiar with the reference that shuts the door forever. Do you happen to recall where that is? I recall the policy of leaving the door open a crack…
(another major hubbard contradiction. why should I be surprised?)
It’s not something that was ever made BPI. There were some announcements of “excommunication” back in the early 8o’s and it was perhaps in that infamous issue about David Mayo “Story of a Squirrel”… I read the “advices”. There is a large volume of “policy” that is in the form of “advices”. These are Hubbard writing to Int management and others issuing orders on how to do things and what to do — but because he was not “running” scientology (to avoid tax liability) they were called “advice” rather than orders and they were not published broadly. They were available to people at Gold – limited by your “need to know.”
thank you.
And hearing about this type of stuff used to drive me nuts, as it directly contradicted the policy on there not being any hidden data lines. That policy was very important to me and I counted on it. Then SO missionaires would come in and wreak havoc, defending their actions as being per an FO that I was not allowed to see or know, but their actions were all ok as they were operating off this FO.
For awhile, in the early/mid 80’s, they tried to issue some of these advices I think, in new HCO PLs, they did some odd signature, I’m trying to remember, “As Approved and accepted by the Board of the Church of Scientology” … or something like that…
these weren’t the old BPL green on buff, they were green on white and it was some weasel way of getting around the LRH is no longer running things lie.
Hidden data lines…and lies. *sigh
Thank you for your dilegence and tireless efforts to expose the evil practices of miscavige!
So so many people fully support you . Keep up the good fight !!!! ?
Wow, Tony Ortega has an article up today about a family that was disconnected from their son, Flavio, who was able to contact him. He pretty much said the same thing (no, you’re the ones that abandoned ME). Dr Mac, your comment applies very well over there, and I’m going to copy this in the comments on TO’s article. Very enlightening to never-ins like me when trying to figure out how someone can disconnect from their family and not feel guilty about it.
Absolutely Dr. Mac, that is exactly how it was put forth to me by my son. We are the trouble and we are the ones leaving him and also because oldest son could not be “handled” I was choosing him over disconnected son. We are the ones who abandoned him and yes, all we have to do is do the steps the church has asked us to do and everything will be “fine”, regardless of the fact that we were being persecuted for 4 years.
Yes Mike this would be an excellent article.
After reading this so very sad tale…..Two words come to mind: GUILT TRIP…..
The powers that be have to get YOU back into COS some way….so why not coerce your OWN child to guilt trip you into returning to the fold. The disconnect is your fault, not theirs….you are abandoning the cause AND them at the same time.
Nothing like being coerced and guilt tripped back into complete loyalty in order to ‘save your family”…how many times did I hear THAT while listening to Mary, Lois, Aaron, Leah, Mike…..the ONLY way to get you back is to use that tactic……brain wash your child and USE him or her against you…..sickening.
I’ am so so sorry for everyone, my heart goes out to all of you and I can only hope you remain strong and stay away & also that someday your child, parents, siblings realize that you truly love them.
Thank you Lois for your bravery to go against that demon spawn- miscavige. I admire your bravery. I fully support your family ! There are so many others that also support your cause. Keep up the good fight . You are not alone.
Wishing you and your family all the best ! You GO – girl !!
So sorry about what you’ve experienced, Lois. My best wishes always to you.
…
Yes, – in the video of where Mike’s family came and were yammering at him in the parking lot – they were using this I think. He was being accused of abandoning THEM.
It’s so twisted.
I’ll second that as a notable and very insightful conclusion as to why it’s so hard to reunite with family who have disconnected from you. They automatically and thoroughly believe the one they have disconnected from has the responsibility to see the error of their ways and make good the damage “they” have done to them. You are so very right dr mac, it’s all so very, “about faced,” and reversed computed in the minds of Scientologists. I had an OT8 sister-in-law tell me to my face, because shes’s OT8 I need to go to the Org and get myself sorted out because I disagreed with her. When I told her that’s never going to happen, the disagreement is between you and me, not for some person at the Org to mediate over. She then not only disconnected from me but her own sister, my wife, as well. It’s such a miserable thing to live with this disconnection Scientologists engage upon. I’m expected to crawl over broken glass back to the Org and beg forgiveness and it’s my fault my wife doesn’t have a sister anymore. It truly is emotional blackmail – be a Scientologist just like me or else I’ll never talk to you or anyone associated with you again and to hell with the consequences!
The other aspect connected to this is that Scientologists are thoroughly brain-washed into believing they are the only ones who know there is a technical reason as to why you have now become a problem to them. It’s all so plainly laid out in HCOPLs and HCOBs. They take it as their religious obligation for the betterment of conditions in life to disconnect from you to convince you of what they know is so very technically correct and is the best thing for you in the long run. They are the most delusional people one can ever deal with. They grant no beingness to anyone – not even themselves, except some dead guy and a tyrant with his gang of legal thugs all for the pursuit of a false freedom. They ‘self coerce’ into denying themselves their own lives and that of their family and friends just to show how good a dedicated Scientologist they are… and they think they are on the road to freedom – sick!
I Yawn —
Even though I’ve read countless stories of disconnection, I just wanted to say how sorry I am you lost your sister-in-law and that your wife lost her sister.
Every story of $cientology’s repulsive disconnection policy makes me more outraged and very sad. I sincerely hope you’re able to re-connect with anyone you lost due to your departure from the CO$.
Yeah, it crazy hey, but thanks. My wife handles it pretty well I suppose. There’s heaps more to the story as Scientologists complicate things for the hell of it and it’s a large family. The brother in law is also a card carry OT8. He sits on the fence, all sadly noble like surveying us ex’s and stabs anyone he can in the back if they even mention anything he can’t align with positive Cof$ PR. I feel nausea just thinking about them.
Mac you’re so right. The kids are told that their parent is the cause of the disconnection when the opposite is true. My daughter told me that I had betrayed her by reading on the internet and they made sure the kids knew and finally agreed to, “look what overts your mother has on you…” It is so that they can justify shunning and disconnecting from the parents.
This judge could see no love either. http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/library-item.php?iid=2001
Pedrofcuk:
We don’t seem to see judges who are this smart and courageous these days. COS takes advantage of the system by spending their tax-free ill-gotten gains by having so many lawyers in court they can intimidate a weak judge. (I DO love it when this tactic backfires though). They are also guilty of practices that were satirized in the 19th century by Dickens and in Gilbert and Sullivan operas like Iolanthe and Trial By Jury. I love the G&S statements about the purpose of lawyers is to “hoodwink a judge who is not overwise” and “throw dust in a juryman’s eyes”.
Love to all… including rank and file scientologists.
I do not claim to know the answers to the questions you’ve posed Mike. Doesn’t the subject of compassionate love strike at the heart of what we have evolved into? I think that Scientology’s way is a vector of evolution, however, time will tell if it becomes the dead end that I think it is. I don’t discount it completely as parasites have found a niche in the big scheme of Nature.