As I listened to Sylvia Stanard respond to a question about the scientology view of psychiatry at the Chauquatua conference (see at 1:19;45), I could not help but be amazed a the “spin” she sought to put on this.
She claims that the church is only opposed to the “mind altering drugs, ECT and abuses in the field of mental health.”
An “acceptable truth” — along with so many others she delivered that day — but you have to wonder why when addressing a sophisticated audience of “thinkers and seekers” she didn’t tell them the real truth? Why NOT explain the REAL beliefs of the church? No self-respecting Christian would try to mealy-mouth the virgin birth? A Christian Scientist would not try to claim they are NOT opposed to blood transfusions. Every religion (and even more so, every cult) has unprovable beliefs. She claimed that OT III was just “taken from someone’s auditing notes” and is not part of “published” scientology. And that disconnection doesn’t apply if someone is just “critical” or “leaves the church” it is only used when, for example, a woman is in an abusive relationship. And many more examples.
I was reminded of the “spin” when a Special Correspondent sent me this from Facebook.
The REAL view of scientologists on psychiatry and psychology.
But this is hardly surprising. Hubbard railed against psychiatry almost from the outset when he claimed that he was “attacked” by “psychs” and a vast conspiracy unfolded to prevent his work from being widely distributed and recognized. There is no doubt a handful of psychiatrists opposed Dianetics and that government agencies relied on them for their opposition to Dianetics and Scientology. But perhaps there is also some truth to the idea that every faith (whether it be classified as a religion or a cult) needs a “devil” to oppose and fight for the salvation of mankind. For scientologists, the psychiatrists and psychologists are the devil. They have taken on almost mythic powers as the purveyors of all evil in society (or perhaps a more apt phrase would be “comic book powers”).
One of the tools the IAS uses most heavily to collect funds is their “campaigns” to “destroy,” “obliterate,” “eradicate” psychiatry (little do people know they basically do nothing on any of these campaigns, that is left to CCHR who try to raise their own money). Miscavige himself (and me and Heber before him) proclaims to the foot-stomping, cat-calling, clubbed seal audience that the “whole track implanters” and “SPs” will be brought down over the coming year. It is one of the most popular and successful activities to gain support for the IAS.
Of course, this is in large part because it plays to Hubbard’s view of psychiatry and psychology. And over the years, he did not soften his position. In fact it became more radical. There are unpublished “advices” from the 1980’s that are way more vitriolic than his public utterances. But the publicly available ones serve the purpose of illustrating the point just fine.
If you look in the Technical Volumes of Dianetics and Scientology, the official “scripture” of scientology, you will find some of Hubbard’s LAST published works are focused on the pervasive evil of psychiatrists destroying civilization and enslaving mankind.
In a published bulletin dated 29 Nov 1981 titled DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY COMPARED TO 19TH CENTURY PRACTICES he said the following:
A comparison between Dianetics and Scientology and psychology and psychiatry is nonsense.
The two 19th century subjects, psychology and psychiatry, do not achieve ANY good results. On the contrary they are destructive beyond belief. They make crackpots, sexpots and vegetables when they do not outright kill.
The greatest crime of our times is the use of psychology and psychiatry to teach little children in schools with them and manufacture crime and a whole world of immorality and unhappiness.
The character of the Governments themselves is established by their tolerance and use of psychology and psychiatry. In no human race of any civilized repute has any law condoned broad mayhem and murder of their populations. Yet under modern governments psychology and psychiatry not only have carte blanche but also get insistence on their use.
Murderers flock to murderers according to old sages. The governments only smile at the brand of Cain upon their heads.
Is this a civilized world we’re living in?
I’m afraid it only will be when Dianetics and Scientology can bring wisdom enough to Man to blunt his furious efforts to do himself in.
So laugh in people’s faces if they compare Dianetics and Scientology to the “orthodox mental subjects.” They are insulting you.
And this excerpt from 26 APRIL 1982, THE CRIMINAL MIND AND THE PSYCHS.
So let us look at psychs again—what they call “treatment” is a suppression (by shocks, drugs, etc.) of the ability to think. They are not honest enough, these psychs, being just dramatizing psychotics themselves for the most part, to publish the fact that all their “treatments” (mayhem really when it is not murder) make people more stupid.
These actions of shock and crazy evaluative counselling etc. lower IQ like an express elevator going down to the basement.
They do not tell legislators this or put it in their books. This is why they say “no one can change IQ.” They are hiding the fact that they ruin it.
So the psych in prisons is engaging in an action (shocking or whatever) that makes people who are already criminal even stupider.
Although they obviously tell their victims to go out and commit more crimes (the psychoanalyst urged wives to commit adultery for instance), they would not have to do this at all to manufacture more crime.
Their “treatments” make the criminals more stupid. The stupid commit more crimes.
It is pretty simple, really, when you look at it.
Why does the state support psychiatrists and psychologists? Because the state is stupid? Or does it want more citizens robbed and killed? It’s one or the other. Take your choice.
And this one from 6 May 1982, THE CAUSE OF CRIME.
They say poverty makes crime. They say if one improved education there would be less crime. They say if one cured the lot of the underprivileged one would have solved crime.
All these “remedies” have proven blatantly false.
In very poor countries there is little crime. The «improving» education, it was tailored to «social reform,» not teaching skills. And it is a total failure. The fact that rewarding the underprivileged has simply wrecked schools and neighborhoods and cost billions is missing.
So who is “they”? The psychologist and psychiatrist of course. These were their crackpot remedies for crime. And it’s wrecked a civilization.
So what IS the cause of crime? The treatment of course! Electric shocks, behavior modification, abuse of the soul. These are the causes of crime. There would be no criminals at all if the psychs had not begun to oppress beings into vengeance against society.
There’s only one remedy for crime—get rid of the psychs! They are causing it!
Ah yes, it’s true on cases and cases of research on criminals. And what’s it all go back to? The psychs!
Their brutality and heartlessness is renowned.
The data is rolling in. Any more you pick up off a criminal or anyone, send it in.
On crime we have an epidemic running on this planet. The wrong causes psychs assign for crime plus their own “treatments” make them a deadly virus.
The psychs should not be let to get away with “treatment” which amounts to criminal acts, mayhem and murder. They are not above the law. In fact there are no laws at all which protect them for what sane society would sanction crime against its citizens even as science? They should be handled like any other criminals. They are at best dramatizing psychotics and dangerous, but more dangerous to society at large than the psychotics they keep in their offices and looney bins because they lie and are treacherous. Why the government funds them I do not know. They are the last ones that should be let loose to handle children.
And virtually the last issue in the Tech Vols is HCO Bulletin of 26 AUGUST 1982 PAIN AND SEX which contains the following which is characterized as an “important discovery”:
Go into an asylum or a prison and look at the increasing institutional population and know what you are looking at. In the main, there are pain and sex addicts, decadent and degraded and no longer capable.
They were sent on that route down through the ages by the psychs and here they are still in the psych’s hands! And do they get well or go straight? Oh no. Whether in prisons or insane asylums they just get worse. And the psychs in both places rub their bloodied hands as they turn their products loose again upon the remaining population! It’s no accident. And the stocks- in-trade of psychs are PAIN and SEX.
They will even tell you it’s “natural” to steal!
To compound their felony—if that is possible—they tell you it’s the body doing it.
Another crashing big false datum on top of all their other lies. These are data which emerged from recent thorough research of the whole track. This is not theory or some strange opinion. It is provable electronic fact.
The waves are just synthesized. They are the most used tools in the campaign against beings in furthering the general goal of those creatures whose sole ambition is destruction. The universe does not happen to be either destructive or chaotic except as such obsessed creeps make it. Statements it is otherwise are just more false data from the same suspect “authorities”. It fits their purposes to make seem natural what they make artificially. The universe only seems that way to a being because such loathsome psychotics make it seem so. They destroyed every great civilization to date and are hard at work on this one. The one thing they can’t stand is the light of truth so, despite their objections, one must turn it on them. Only in its glare do their lies wither. It is the potent weapon they can’t fend off.
It is pretty clear what a good scientologist is supposed to believe about psychiatry and psychology.
So, why doesn’t Sylvia Stanard come right out and say it?
Because everything is “spun” in an attempt to make it palatable for the audience. The public “face” of scientology (when there is one, this is the first time I have seen a scientology official respond to questions on camera since Tommy Davis show his last footnuke) attempts to mask the reality of what scientologists really believe and practice. It is a strategy that worked to some extent when available information about the subject was limited. Today, it is going down in flames worse than the Hindenburg.
And just one final note. When it is convenient (especially in court case) the church trots out a pat line that “this is our scripture” and it is “a firmly held religious belief” in order to justify things like the Squirrelbusters or the “right” to disconnect. But those “firmly held” beliefs turn into jello in a hurricane when the “PR tech” is being employed to make scientology look warm, fuzzy and acceptable to the public.
Sorry I’m so late but I wanted to comment on this important topic. The problem that CCHR has is dropped out time. Both psychiatry and psychology have vastly changed and added valid science behind their subjects in the last many decades. They are really not the same subjects. I know psychology has gone a lot more practical. I thought those LRH issues were over the top when I read them and didn’t adopt those views. Now they just seem irrelevant. I have personally seen lives devastated by psyches where heavy drugs were given and the result was someone in much worse condition. Their overt products are a serious problem. I audited a shock case once, pre- illegal pcs, and the damage was quite terrible. The person also got the shock when she was a teen, which was ordered by her crazy father, compounding her suffering. I managed to get a nice life repair release on her anyway. 🙂 The field of mental healing is rife with ignorance and failure. Scn is not immune to this mental and physical torture either, as the many who have left the rcs can attest. When mental or spiritual help is done with bad, other or weird intentions, harm usually occurs, compounding the original problem, that the person already had. Cases can and are being damaged in the current rcs. Anyone who has studied Scn. knows that bad incidents run in chains of similar incidents so the track is full of these abuses. Someone like myself who has audited 1000s of hours, has heard many mind manipulating incidents, full of lots of charge and the psyches are right in there, with all the others types that would find such manipulation “fun”. The priest, the mystic, the chaste woman, the doctor, the counselor, the psyche et al, who dot this landscape, can be described in present day terms, but the variety is broad. Let’s just call them crazy fuckers who enjoy torturing people. Perhaps LRH lumped them under the term “psyches”, who knows. I do know that these are major players in depositing large amounts of charge on the track that involve knowledge, the mind, religion, insanity and other very hot button issues for beings. When a person is relieved of this charge, it is an amazing and humbling experience to watch. All I can say is, if a person actually is their soul and has lived before, that these types of incidents have a huge impact on their well being and relief thereof, if they are handled terminatedly and of course, with love.
“Why not let anyone who feels they are being helped by something have the right to make the choices about their own lives?”
Yes, because, has any OTHER way EVER worked?
No its all bad or do you not read the posts?
Mike,
Not fully sure where you stand, but from the article it would appear that you do not hold to L. Ron’s teachings? I only ask as the other guy, Marty, I believe his name is, apparently still holds to the Scientology ‘faith’. [And from what I understand you guys hang out… so I initially assumed that you still held to L Rons teachings.]
I was going to reply to that Mike but now I realise there really is no point at all.
You are correct.
Scientology does not work, it never did it never can.
Good luck mate.
bye
Not sure what the meaning of this is?
I think you are asserting that my position is “Scientology does not work, it never did and it never can”?
If so, try to wrap your wits around this evaluative response: I think your Grade 4 is unflat.
Someone sent this to me just now, and I think it is worth including here:
Scientology is so inept in it’s war with psychs that they helped stop legitimate debate on anti depressants and such.
This is detailed in Richard Whitaker’s Book Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs and the Rise of Mental Illness in America.
Below is an excerpt from an interview he did. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/why-psychiatry-embraced-drugs-an-interview-with-author-robert-whitaker
You mentioned Eli Lily and their response to data showing Prozac being associated with suicidal ideation, and how scientology and its views on psychiatry entered the picture.
I made a little joke in the book about psychiatry secretly funding scientology, but really, it couldn’t have worked out better for the pharmaceutical companies and biological psychiatry. The reason is that, of course, it delegitimizes criticism. The fact that scientology is so visibly attacking biological psychiatry and attacking psychiatric drugs delegitimizes all criticism. Scientologists clearly do have a cult-like status and they clearly do have an agenda. The fact that they’re so visible makes it very easy for psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies to say, “This is just criticism coming from that crazy group.”
Some of the stuff, they’ve gone into the data and they’ve brought out some information. Because it was scientology and CCHR that was out front with the criticism and raising questions and raising accusations that these drugs were causing suicide and violence, just made it really easy for pharmaceutical industry and Eli Lily to have it dismissed. If we didn’t have Scientology. Imagine it doesn’t exist and there’s no such group raising criticism. The questions around whether Prozac can stir violence or could cause someone to become suicidal or homicidal would have had a lot more traction.
I like to hear of people having wins from psychiatric drugs.
To hear tales of the insane becoming sane by masking their symptoms of insanity with chemical alterations of their brain function must surely be applauded and encouraged for all.
In fact if more people could be put on such drugs by the real experts in the field of mental health would this alone not bring down the technology Scientology which is the real purpose here.
Wouldn’t you say you are being just a tad arrogant?
What would you say about someone who told you you obviously did not feel better after auditing, because it was a harmful sham process?
I know people who take some of these “mind altering” medications and they swear it makes it possible for them to lead a normal life. Are you saying they are lying? Or are you asserting that you know they are deluded and don’t know what they are talking about? And what qualifies you to make such judgments?
Really, they are no better than those that judge people who say that auditing helps them. It’s just the other side of the coin with the exact same assertions made by both sides.
Why bother?
Why not let anyone who feels they are being helped by something have the right to make the choices about their own lives?
Jeffrey Augustine has now loaded the interview I did with him concerning Sylvia Stanards appearance on YouTube. Go here to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3UG8Y5e7XU
As I recall in one of the R&D Volumes LRH said, quite bluntly, that we were playing a game, and that games require opponents, and that he had chosen psychiatry, and that the choice was fairly arbitrarily decided. Alas, I’ll have to write myself up for the verbal tech, and do my conditions, as I cannot quote this specifically, in that I no longer have my R&Ds, but perhaps someone else here still has theirs, and can find the chapter and verse?
If true, that’s a pretty strange excuse to justify eradicating/obliterating/destroying all psychiatrists and psychologists don’t you think? I thought the opponent was the reactive mind?
Just think! With a little more foresight, he could have chosen “the enemy” much more with much greater benefit. Imagine all those issues written with “politicians” substituted for psychs – perhaps the whole Tea Party movement would be behind them now. If, forty years ago he had chosen “children’s penmanship teachers” the entire baby boomer generation would now be praising him for his insight!
Dan Locke and Mike,
I read that same reference and he does admit that it was an arbitrary decision on his part, and that he didn’t have select psychiatry out as an enemy but he was doing it anyway. I forget if he gave a reason, but I would think that it was to have a tangible target as opposed to the intangible target of the real enemy, the reactive mind. Again, I would think that’s why he causitively did this, but its without the reference its just dub in on my part, and I also think it mistake which violated his own precepts (as in “be able to use any motion, for one thing, along with refusing to take responsibility “, for starters) and in the end, all the hammering of psychiatry, all the “You’re wrong, you’re evil, everything bad today is your fault”, by Scientology only made psychiatry stronger.
Just because he said it was an arbitrary choice (if indeed he did say that) doesn’t mean he was telling the truth.
At reading this, and the first few comments, I thought – “Yes, but we all know that!” How wrong I was, thank you “Foolproof.”
Rather than argue with Foolproof, I would encourage anyone who thinks that avoiding “psych” intervention is a good thing to find the recent documentary about Elli Perkins “Deadly Devotion: The Scientology Cure”
Oh, and lest we forget, the eeeevils that the criminal organisation known as the “church” of $cientology fights against includes “psych drugs” such as anti-epilepsi medication. To the sad consequences of this, we owe the fact that there is no longer a narCONon problem in France. http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com/2013/04/ignoring-epilepsy-i_3446.html
Is any OSA-attempt known to found or run other anti-psychiatry group or organization? (In order to evade the anti-Scientology-press or to create the picture that there are several groups or a “movement”)
Or, if not run covertly by OSA any co-operation in this direction?
The English “National Association for Mental Health” is a pro-patient organisation (today called “Mind”) which got infiltrated by the criminal organisation known as the “church” of $cientology. More in the book “Believe What You Like” (Andre Deutsch Limited, 1973, ISBN 0-233-96375-8)
So, hardly an anti-psychiatry orgnisation, but defintely an infiltration. Oh and the Co$ moved on to another sacred $cientology sacrement: the lawsuit.
“Psychiatrists” is a generality and so reduces the chances for a differentiated and acurate picture. At some point LRH had trained psychiatists and even CCHR was co-founded by a psychiatrist, Dr. Szash. And I remember a lecture in which LRH stated that he would fight psychiatists because he would have been one himself once.
My understanding of “psychiatists” as treated in these issues is that LRHs view comes from a whole-track view and would be “a brand of person that uses mental or spiritual mechanisms or the understanding of them to control, enslave or harm in some way”. It is not neccesarily the person who currently earns his living in the profession of a psychiatrist. I would classify David Miscavige a “psychiatrist”.
Secondly, differences wants to be noted. A psychiatrist who “assists” with methods of torture of prisoners or resistive persons, like whistle blowers, etc. should be differentiated from a person who is trying to assist a patient in mental troubles. Many more differentiations could be made here.
Thirdly, Pyschiatry today is not neccessary the same as Psychiatry 50 years ago. I have seen a pychiatric hospital that, aside their medications, just let their patients calm down and let them in peace. I have met some psychiatrists and my impression was that he was motivated by the desire to honestly help.
The bubble people clamoring for attention and nobody
is listening. It’s pathetic with the mantras of “saving the
world” and “eradicate all the psychs”. But when someone
really needs the help of a “psych” they covertly deliver
the poor chap to the SP’s (yes, I have seen it) or they
try to handle it in Fort Harrison (LMcP). If you sit in a glass
house… Instead of hollering all this nonsense, use some of
those billions in the church and build a facility for the people
who needs to get out of whatever challenge they are in.
Let’s see how easy it is. There are actually holistic approaches
to mental illnesses. Maybe you can start a fundraising.
Thank you Mike for your input on this. I am a daily reader of your blog and look forward to your insights.
I am really concerned about the issue of the mentally ill. I work for a local organization and helps people that are dealing with this. They are wonderful people to get to know.
I am the director of a Learning Center where our members come to take courses for job preparation or just personal enhancement.
You will never find a more intelligent and honest people anywhere. They inspire me everyday. Some are homeless, but many have found solutions and are living healthy and productive lives. Even the homeless are working hard to improve their standings in life.
I just wish that a Scientologist would spend just one day with me and see the progress being made. Do I think that everyone is receiving the help they need? No, but things are getting much better and are giving hope to people that would normally be thrown under the bus.
Thank you for what you do. It’s a terrible thing to categorize an entire category of anything as “all bad”. Blanket labeling people and thereby assigning them attributes because they fit under the label is almost the definition of prejudice. Unfortunately, this is a trait of fundamentalists of all stripes.
Certainly there have been psychiatric abuses. Insanity is a problem for which there is no easy answer. In the 19th century the insane were just locked up, and while they were treated horribly at times at least they had something to eat and a place to sleep. When the large institutions began to close down, a phenomenon that Scientology liked to take credit for, there were supposed to be out-patient services to take care of the former patients. This never happened, and now we have a significant population of severely mentally ill people literally living under bridges. I used to cheer along with all the sheeple when I saw the special effects videos at events of the doors closing on the mental institutions with a resounding clang. Now I see the human wreckage that was caused when this happened. I suspect that Scientology actually had very little to do with the closing of mental health facilities, but certainly they have not helped. And they are by no means offering an alternative solution. If you are mentally ill, or homeless, you certainly won’t be a legal PC anytime soon! It is just an appallingly blinkered view of the world that makes Scientologists think they are doing anything to help insanity. If even a tiny percentage of the $millions that go to the IAS and CCHR went to a local homeless shelter or soup kitchen instead they could do more good than the entire history of the CCHR. In a few weeks.
Kind of hard imagining Dave ladling out the minestrone in a soup kitchen, isn’t it?
That reminds me that I was impressed to learn that an ex-$cientologist friend of mine regularly spends christmass eve laddling out soup (or whatever they serve) in a service/dinner organised by a church. This ex-$cientologist obviously had no place in the criminal organisation known as the “church” of $cientology 🙂
Well said!
Bruce P, You’ve just hit the nail on the head as regards the Church of Scientology’s war on obliterating psychiatry! Scientology has no solutions for the severely mentally ill, so if CCHR’s ostensible war on psychiatry (which they use just to get money) would be successful and there really would be no more psychiatrists practicing nor mental hospitals nor psychotropic drugs etc., what would Scientology do with the severely mentally ill? DUH!
And NONE of this negates what I personally have witnessed as HORRIFIC abuses of patients in these hospitals including indiscriminate administration of electric shock therapy.
INteresting question: what would Scientology do with the severely mentally ill?
They are unlikely to have any money, so that almost certainly guarantees they will be ignored. Plus they are likely not interested in being anointed humanitarian or patron or champion, so that’s strike 2. And they actually take someone using their time to pay attention to them rather than fundraising, so that’s strike 3.
I guess they will just roam the streets….
I’m surprised you ask. The answer is in “$cience of Survival…”
Mike – The severely mentally ill are SPs – and they maintain the strictest standards of dress and pretense to avoid being singled out as evil. The fundamental precedent cause of insanity seems to be hatred – fundamentally, not necessarily the immediate break. The level of rationality in that lower tone is limited. Hatred itself is an emotion, not necessarily an overt act, but there is some line beyond which hatred is acted upon, and evil is simply allowing hatred to turn into action – and communication is an action, which is usually the SPs primary weapon. – Carcha
Never saw this Tom Cruise interview before. It occurred about the same time period as the Matt Lauer interview, and comes across as incredibly arrogant. He also doesn’t fail to “put the interviewer’s manners in”. Nice job Miscavige.
Oops. Here’s the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IS7DMIkuvo
The arrogance and condescending attitude sickens me. Cruise claims he has studied which is fine, the question should be what has he studied. Was the source of information impartial and objective or was it The Source..LRH.
I think we all know what the answer is. If as in so many things he would just say his belief system won’t alllow him to condone drugs..fine at least that is honest. Arguing though over the efficacy of prescribed drug use because he is smarter, more educated, more enlightened…is just laughable.
He is a bloody actor…period.
This is the all too common mistake the CoS and devotees make. There is no room for discourse, only fighting and browbeating. Oft times it comes from a place of ignorance and not enlightenment.
Excellent article. I think Tom Cruise here explains Scientology’s real view on Psychiatry better than Sylvia did. Sylvia is clearly glib, while Tom is clearly an expert: “Psychiarty is a pseudo-science.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y7CpS0gtlk
No matter ones viewpoint on psychiatry, it is without doubt, that the more the COS continues to fight it, the more allies, and the stronger psychiatry gets. Once upon a time psychiatry had a bit to worry about when it came to Scientology. Now it’s just a joke. About as serious as someone jumping up and down on a couch.
Most of the psychiatrists I know have never even heard of Hubbard or scientology except perhaps as Tom Cruise’s nutty UFO cult.
The “battle” essentially never happened in the real world.
Psychiatry never “worried” about scientology. They looked at it as they looked at other fads in psychotherapy at the time, i.e. as a quack therapy for the worried well. They had their own internal revolution in pharmacotherapy to deal with and whatever fad therapy books people were reading were of very little interest to them in comparison.
That’s when Hubbard went nuts at being ignored and started making modern demons out of psychiatrists.
“…the result was usually brought about by a convergence of several traumas, and often by the repetition of a great number of similar ones. Thus is was necessary to reproduce the whole chain of pathogenic memories in chronological order, or rather in reversed order, the latest ones last; and it was quite impossible to jump over the later traumas in order to get back more quickly to the first, which was often the most potent.”
Sigmund Freud circa 1911.
If you care to actually read Mr. Freud’s work you will find that virtually everything Hubbard came up with in Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health, was borrowed without any real credit to the originator.
The major difference between Freud’s work and Hubbard’s DMSMH is that Freud failed to claim that this revolutionary new technology would cure the common cold, give one didactic memory, greatly extend one’s life span and improve eyesight, hearing or intelligence etc.etc.
So the evil SP psychiatrist that Ron is vilifying is actually the source of the basic concepts of Dianetics.
In the early days, Ron used to give Freud credit. Later on, he just lumped him in with all the other evil, whole-track implanters.
The more Hubbard set himself up as “the ONLY one,” the more he spewed venom at anyone else who paved the way by originating ideas he now claimed as his own.
As the subject of psychology gets more and more spiritual and refines it’s techniques to provide improved help, the religion Hubbard started gets more and more materialistic and employs behavior modification, torture and hypnotism to effect its ends.
Many useful things came out of this scientology adventure. But one must be very critical of each and every assertion because the author has, unfortunately, proven himself to be a rather unreliable source of information.
Think for yourself, believe nothing, take what you need or want and leave the rest.
Thanks for publishing this Mike. I think what you do is very valuable.
Excellent point Les. Thanks.
Eidetic, not didactic?
oops! thanks
Yes this is all very well if true (I have read several (non-Church) stories that Freud made up his cases to sell his works) – but what did he then do with it? Did he invent a therapy that actually worked to reduce the traumatic incidents on people and without evaluating for them? LRH did with Dianetics – plus the marvellous collection of processes known as the Grades (now) and about 10 tons of others.
None of which work.
Perhaps not for you Espiando.
Well Mike, because I have heard of people and know 1 or 2 myself that have been exposed to the materials and who weren’t Clear and didn’t “take it lightly”. Basically it messed them up. This did also happen in the Church – I recall one case at Flag who was literally running his fingernails down the wall. So what does the woman do here? If one person can be harmed (and they have been) then I don’t think we need to go a crusade about it or deride the Church’s spokeswoman about it. She is caught between a rock and a hard place. It seems the whole world is allowed to bend facts to suit themselves (PR) but the Church or Scientology is not allowed to. I think that is a bit unfair bearing in mind what I say above. It is all very well for those who are not affected by the story (?) to state that others should have access to it and be able to read it. But then we could get into, for instance, arguing if past lives are real or not – some will believe this some won’t. And again she does not have to explain anything to anyone, really. To the people who do not believe the story it is simply giving them ammunition to deride the subject and you will not be able to convince anyone until they have actually done the level and see those LFBDs and feel the case changes when you start to run it. Same with past lives.I don’t believe that Scientology should seek “approval” at all.
I wish they would explain how the IAS or Idle Orgs does not violate policy though. Now those are questions I would ask!
“I don’t believe that Scientology should seek “approval” at all.”
I agree with you 100%. She had one smart answer to one of the questions “Well, that’s why we call it religion.”
But you appear to want an “explanation” that is not truthful to “protect” some people. But this argument is about 20 years out of date. You can read the “notes” in LRH’s handwriting in numerous places on the internet. My point is that IT IS OUT THERE. To continue to pretend it doesn’t exist and lie about it is foolish in my opinion. It destroys credibility. You think the person that asked the question and read the quotes from the handwritten OT III instructions doesn’t know that this is the instructions from Hubbard? And in an audience like that I suspect many others also know and have seen it. Those are not “notes from counseling sessions”. They are the “OT materials” — why deny them? When the world knows you are lying?
I almost put a photo of “Baghdad Bob” at the top of this posting, but I was not sure too many people would know who it was and why I had included it without explanation.
This is religious belief. It does not HAVE to be justified. Or scientifically proven. Even your LFBD is someone else’s “skin reaction” and never the two shall meet. Your past lives are someone else’s “induced memories.”
It’s part of the problem with the whole subject of scientology. It is presented as “scientific” and “proven” but also as a religion. Those two concepts do not mix well.
Actually Mike, as regards “skin reactions” surprisingly (and fairly) even the extreme skeptics on the Ex Scn Msg Brd with their link on E-Meter reactions quite nicely disproved that little theory and eventually more or less agreed that the meter did what it (didn’t – ha) say on the box! I remember it well as I was so surprised that they would debunk the skin reactions and sweat theories etc! Ha! Signed: Baghdad Bob.
That’s nice, but the VAST majority of people in the world would argue with you about the efficacy of the meter. That’s all I was saying.
In reply to yours of 10:45PM – yes I know that was all you were saying – I didn’t at all think you were one of the ones arguing about the efficacy of the meter. Actually though I think that the vast majority of people wouldn’t have a clue as to what was true or not about the meter.
“It destroys credibility.”
Keep going, nearly there…
Nearly where? I assume there is some “superior” viewpoint that you have achieved that I am supposed to rise to? You’re sounding an awful lot like one of those fundamentalist scientologists….
OK, without the sugar coating: What is this credibility of which you speak?
Seriously, One of the comments I left directed at you would have been enough, two was just too darn strident, which you caught out – fair enough. I do not try to convince you (or anyone else) to agree with me to any significant extent, I am much more in favour of everyone having access all of the information and then making a judgement on their own. Sometimes I do vent my own opinion, but if I get ignored I can live with that.
OK, I get you now.
The credibility is the fact that she was invited to speak to this audience at all. Or that the media STILL publishes the unsupported claims of the church about its “massive expansion” and “11,000 churches missions and groups” and “12 million scientologists.”
Now, now, don’t go mushy on me! I was being overbearing and that’s not what I want to put across here (I do that on WWP and Tony O’s and so on 😉 )
Seriously, again, the religious cloaking took a long time to put in place and has served the criminal organisation known as the “church” of $cientology all to well. To go back to your post of recently, I believe that criminal investigations into the actions of Jim Jones’ cult were stopped because of fears that “investigating an NRM would lead to investigations of proper religions and we wouldn’t want that…” or words to that effect (i.e. I’m only 99% certain that I read it, and I can’t be bothered to look it up). More to the point, in the spring of this year the French spokeshole Eric ROUX gave a talk at an INFORM event at the London School of Enconomics. This is the person who stood up in court (and walked out of the appeal) representing the organisation which got criminally convicted, through to the highest avaliable legal instance, of organised fraud. http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com/2014/07/atack-on-roux-on-scientology.html
So, yes, it’s frustrating that lies from the organisation are accepted.
“Pain and sex” – Add smoking in the number two slot and it sounds like the entire spectrum of activity of a typical seaorg member. Of course, only the lucky ones get the sex, but because they can’t get contraception without giving up their cigarette money… well that’s another topic.
“Xenu caused 4th dynamic engram” – Granted, it is excerpted out of context, but the good news is that 99.999999999% of society could only say, “WTF are you talking about??!?” This phrase alone indicates what a bunch of bullshit scientology is.
And as to some people’s comments on the OTIII story, well, it is all very well for you to come on here and spout out how it is all nonsense but the proof of the pudding is in the needling, so to speak, and those who have properly done the level think that your comments are absolute nonsense. If you can say that then I can retort with what I say. But disbelief was also part of the incident as well.
Debating belief tends to bring out emotions but usually does little to change anyone’s mind. Everyone has a right to believe as they wish, it is only PRACTICES that should be proscribed. If those practices are a result of belief and they are harmful or abusive, then they should be stopped.
My point about OT 3 was not to take a position as to its veracity, but to point out that scientologists have no problem lying about it because it is something to be derided (by now the old idea that it causes people to get sick and possibly die if they are exposed to it has been proven untrue — especially as the story of Xenu is contained in Revolt In The Stars screenplay. It is simply that it is embarrassing to talk about. But why? Stranger than Joseph Smith and his golden tablets and the angel Moroni? Not really. Stranger than the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden? No. Or people being turned into pillars of salt? No.
So, why not just own up to it and explain it as it should be explained? That this is a part of scientology belief?
Why be evasive or downright dishonest about it?
“Why be evasive or downright dishonest about it?”
As explained to me by SO members we both know. “There can be no critisism or derision of Scientology”.
This leads to acceptable truths and denial of everything.
No wonder their PR is so bad, it’s basically based on lies or at best half truths.
“Why be evasive or downright dishonest about it?”
You’re nearly there, Mike…
Ditto my other response
The Hawaiian Islands are far less than 75 million years old. Quod erat demonstratum.
Well, if we are talking about the assumption of a “no conspiracy” here on the part of the psychiatric profession, I can only relate a little story of mine. Years ago a publication was running repeated stories about Scientology, you know, the usual sort of stuff, some sort of half true, some not at all true. Now the Church Gestapo asked me to investigate this publication and see what I could find out and what I found out was, well, incredulous! Of the 6 maybe 7 members of the board of directors of that publication 5 no less were actual members of the World Federation of Mental Health. I myself had no real facts to support the Church’s claims before, but when I saw this in black and white, well, there is no arguing with a fact like that. So it is all very well here for commentators to make light of psychiatry but bear in mind what just this one fact means. This does not excuse any of the abuses that the Church gets into but I don’t think we should get on to a junket or a band wagon to try and make out psychiatry “is not so bad” which is not really Mike’s intention here but has somewhat been insinuated by some commentators here. The Church under current “management” is or can be pretty rough on people that we all know but they are not ECTing people, well, yet anyway – ha!
Hi Foolproof. Why not name this publication? I am interested to know…
I would assume following this logic that the majority of the board of directors of the Tampa Bay Times, CNN’s AC 360, BBC Panorama, Time magazine and The New Yorker are also members of the WFMH?
Honestly, the massive psych conspiracy to “destroy scientology” is a straw man. I don’t think the psychs could care less about scientology.
I tend to agree with you Mike, most psyches couldn’t give a hoot. And the Church’s stance is sometimes OTT on psychiatry, admittedly, but sometimes it is not. But these dudes were a bit more than just psyches. The average Psych is not a member of the WFMH. And 5 of the 6 or 7 on their board is rather a hot statistic is it not? As to the other organizations you mention above yes maybe 1 or 2 are members, but I would have to do the same sort of research to know for sure and these days I have other fish to fry! I will email you with the name of the organization (but I can’t seem to find your hushmail (?) account on site).
Now I also bow to your knowledge as ex head of OSA that you would know that such a conspiracy does or does not exist, but I think it did – a while ago. Perhaps the WFMH looks at Miscavige’s Church now and thinks “job well done”, but I am not implying or saying here that DM is a pysch agent or anything – not directly anyway – he*s messed it up on his lonesome.
Just click on the button on the home page that says Contact Me.
I’ve been to a number of psychiatrists over the years. None of them have tried to implant me. None of them have tried to lobotomize me. None of them have tried to perform ECT on me. All of them have tried to assist me. When medication they tried with me didn’t work, they tried other medications until finding a combination that did work. I am receiving wins on those medications to this day.
What’s true for me is true. And what’s true for you is a complete lie foisted upon someone who had a three-and-a-half decade hissy fit because actual scientists told him that his “scientific” theory had no rational basis in any science whatsoever.
Oh, come on, don’t be shy. Mention the real Source for this: Sty the psychiatrist from “Revolt in the Stars.”
name one thing where there isn’t any abuse.
Not to mention psychiatrists being described as the “sole cause of the decline of this universe” (or something to that effect) in Pain and Sex, iirc.
I would like to pipe up in defence of psychology and psychiatry: people in both fields have continued to work on the very real problem of mental health over the past 3 decades that scn has stagnated. Much has been learned about what can go wrong, and now even more is being learned about what can go right (see appreciative inquiry or positive psychology for example).
When faced with insanity, scn does not know what to do. The masters of communication and proponents of the maxim that communication is the universal solvent follow guidelines that prohibit communication.
There are many psychiatrists that see ECT or neurosurgery as a last resort. Among psychiatrists there actually are some that consider the soul or spitrituality an integral part of healing.
I suspect that some people who violently oppose anti-depressives have never themselves experienced lasting, debilitating depression. There comes a point where a person may be willing to try anything short of suicide.
Just because scn claims it has the key to sanity does not make it true. As long as it cannot demonstrate its ability to actually help people who have very real issues, it should refrain from commenting wholesale on the shortcomings of mental health professionals.
I’m pretty willing to bet that most of the rah-rah crowd at cheerleading IAS events have never been in a psychiatric hospital, never spoken to a mental health professional, and never been faced with someone with major issues requiring professional help.
Lobotomies are not practiced in psychiatric care anymore. Ever. Not even as a last resort for anything. That is considered barbaric by everyone in the medical profession now.
ECT is used in cases of severe untractable depression, with the consent of the patient. It is used very rarely, and in a very different way from what was accepted practice in Hubbard’s time. The amounts of current are different for instance, and the patient is sedated. He / she is also warned of its side effects, like amnesia. No one is submitted to ECT against their will. It is offered as an option for those patients for whom anti-depressants don’t work. Sometimes it does works for them, and enables them to have a normal life after months or years of hell.
Another thing that has changed a whole lot is that it is very, very difficult legally to have people get psychiatric treatment against their will today. Even for people who have committed murder because of their illness.
That is not to say that abuses don’t happen in medicine or psychiatry, but to show that Hubbard’s version of them is extremely dated, and does not remotely represents any form of modern psychiatric care anywhere in the world. And scientology and CCHR had absolutely nothing with this evolution. Psychiatry, unlike scientology, is a science, and like all sciences, change is part of its makeup.
Kemist,
ECT therapy is quite commonly administered in the psychiatric hospitals in my city. It is neither “rare” nor “given as a last resort”. It also happens to be quite lucrative for these hospitals, and yes, it cannot be administered without the patient’s consent but there is intense pressure to agree to it, and the families of the patient are brought in to come on board and pressure the patient to sign off for this “treatment”. ECT is a big moneymaker and anyone who ends up on the psychiatric floors of these hospitals is fair game for it.
As to its efficacy, you should try it yourself sometime. Oh, but wait: you probably don’t “need” electrodes strapped to your scull…well, yes, we’ll just reserve this for those people who really need electric shocks shot into their brain while they are strapped into a chair and properly sedated of course.
Aquamarine,
You are quite mistaken about ECT. Its only remaining indication these days is in the treatment of severe intractable depression that does not respond to anti-depressants.
The image you have of it is outdated by several decades. I know this because I work daily with people involved in medicine and medical research. Several of my close friends are doctors.
And as someone who has experienced clinical depression which was thankfully caused by a malfunctioning thyroid, I have to tell you that if no pharmaceutical approach had worked against this hellish disease, I would have certainly have accepted to have “electrodes strapped to my head”.
It beats offing yourself to escape that grey boring hell.
Anyone who tells you the contrary has no idea what clinical depression is really like.
I’m sorry, but it is not true that “no one gets ECT without their consent. It depends on the State; in New York sate it can stil be administered by Court order, last time I checked. There maybe other jurisdictions where that is true.
The truth is somewhere in between the extreme pro and con posts I’m reading here.
It is seen as a treatment of last resort these days, compared to, say, 50 years ago. This is largely due to the dedicated work of “ECT Survivors” groups and individuals like Linda Andre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Andre
And it is not really true that ECT is now “safer” than it ever was. The use of general anesthetic, for example, actually can make it more dangerous. Nonetheless, some people who have gotten it say it was worth the side effects, compared to the hell of the kind of depression they were experiencing.
Do your due diligence; it should not be the subject of the same-old same-old kind of debate that happens all too frequently on so many issues. It should be considered as objectively as possible.
Kemist, you are incorrect. Lobotomy is practiced even today. Certainly not as popular as it once was, and yes, even a good percentage of doctos consider it barbaric, but your assertion that it is not performed ever is blatantly false.
Psychiatry is not a ‘science’. It is at best a set of techniques for trying to produce change in individuals, like a kind of engineering. Engineering is ‘technology’, not ‘science’. They do attempt to use science and research, but psychiatry is not now mostly about the ‘mind’; it is about trying to find drugs or other procedures or methods like TMS (Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation) that will solve certain kinds of symptoms or cause some kind of positive change or relief in a person’s life.
TMS, bu the way, is/was an attempt to develop something that would impact the brains of depressed people in a less harmful way than ECT, with fewer ‘side-effects’. It is still being researched but apparently has produced a few positive results for some people. Really, this avenue was pursued because the medical/psychiatric community does know that ECT often causes some bad permanent effects. ECT does cause some brain damage, but unfortunately offers only temporary relief for many people so must be periodically repeated. Thus the adverse effects are cumulative.
Aqua,
Please do some research. ETC is so very different today than what it was in the beginning. Nobody is strapped to a chair either. It is done in a hospital where the patient is given a sedative and then is under general anesthesia. It is barely noticeable that anything is even occurring. It is a mild treatment compared to a lot of medical procedures. Repairing broken bones is a lot more scary to watch.
If you have never experienced the soul crushing hell that is depression you have no idea how desperate one becomes just to end the pain. This includes suicide. I’d rather people have the option of ETC (which is quite successful) than to kill themselves (or harm others).
It’s the 21st century. Those images from movies like “one flew over the cuckoos nest” are not current & don’t resemble treatment today. If you don’t like ETC, fine, don’t have it done. It is a widely accepted medical procedure that should be available to those who need it and it doesn’t need to be outlawed or banned.
For more info:
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=About_Treatments_and_Supports&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=142939
Frodis
PS-First time posting here…hope it shows up in right place
Frodis,
Welcome to the blog as a first time poster.
What you’re communicating presses my buttons in the worst possible ways and unfortunately, other than to state that I have never had ECT myself nor has it ever been advised for me, I cannot share precisely why I am so against ECT on this blog because it would blow my cover.
I find myself unable at present to debate this subject with you or with anyone advocating it in a calm and rational fashion, therefore its best if we drop this subject and simply agree to disagree..
You could very well be right about the benefits of ECT for some people, but the truth is I am not ever going to research it, and thus I will never know for myself what you are saying, which disqualifies me for any rational and informed discussion of the subject. Peace.
Also in line with this is the old “Shore Story” tech.
What I remember about this from my short stint in the Sea Org was that basically it gave the SO carte blanche to just blatantly lie to any “wog” about any subject related to SCN or the SO. So, if the local community around and SO installation complained or inquired about something, they could just be given any plausible, thought probably completely untrue, explanation for whatever they were complaining or asking about.
LRH gave this technique in a Flag Order if I remember correctly.
“But those “firmly held” beliefs turn into jello in a hurricane when the “PR tech” is being employed to make scientology look warm, fuzzy and acceptable to the public.” They also look bad when you show intolerance to anyone who questions your beliefs, or looks elsewhere. Religious freedom is a two way street.
Mike, Do you think LRH used psychiatry as a scapegoat, because the doctors were skeptical about Hubbard’s theories? It seems I read somewhere that he wanted his ideas to be accepted by the psychiatric community, but his ideas were rejected. Thanks! Ann
Yes, I do.
I do not doubt there are human rights abuses perpetrated by psychiatrists. I believe ECT and any form of “shock treatment” is barbaric. I think people have been abused in psychiatric institutions. But specific have been transposed into a complete generality.
This would be like condemning every scientologist as physical abusers and mental torturers because this is what Miscavige is guilty of (though there may be more justification for this as he is the undisputed and unchallengeable leader)
As screwed up as Scn is, it doesn’t negate the fact that psychiatry, as it’s practiced for the most part today, is still very dangerous. I have first hand experience as to the damage it can cause. I can’t count how many times I went to visit my mom at the county psychiatric hospital where she didn’t recognize me. How many times over the years they put her in 4 way restraint unnecessarily . Enough Thorazine to stop an elephant. Shock therapy, drug cocktails. On and on and on. They ruined her life completely. Really bad. But even up to the end she was a great person. Still is. But they fucked her up good. So the abuses in Scientology exist. But for the most part, the abuses are just as bad or worse in psychiatry. Their drugs and drug cocktails can be devastating. I understand that there is really no other choice when it comes to the mentally ill. They have to go somewhere. But it is what it is.
I agree there are abuses. Especially in psychiatric hospitals. See my other response just now on this subject.
I was making the point that Sylvia attempted to portray scientology’s view of psychiatry as being opposed to the abuses. But it is not. It is directly opposed to all practitioners of the subjects.
Yea, I understand that. And you’re spot on. The generalized “psyche monster” Scientology is after just confuses the issue. This is an area where specifics really count. And at this point and time the mere fact that Scientology opposes psyches, just gives them more strength. Thanks Mr. Cruise.
Does that mean that you’re invalidating the life-changing wins that I’ve had from psychiatric medication? I thought that Scientologists weren’t supposed to invalidate wins. Or are you allowed to invalidate wins that don’t come from Scientology?
[Edited name-calling]
INteresting question. Only scientology wins cannot be invalidated. Other wins should be ruthlessly invalidated as they are a result of “other practices.”
Espiando,
I acknowledge and applaud what have obviously been and continue to be your wins and gains from taking psychiatric medication. I say this without sarcasm; I am glad that you have benefited and that you continue to benefit from it.
That said, completely outside of the bubble of the Church of Scientology with its blanket Scripture aboutthe evils of psychiatry, much evidence exists from psychiatrists themselves that these medications hurt some people, don’t make them better, and sometimes even make them worse.
My questions to you are:
1) Would you agree that psychiatric medications may help some people and indeed be necessary to their day to day normal functioning, while at the same time being unhelpful, unnecessary and possibly even harmful to other people?
2) Do you agree that the profession of psychiatry has not yet formulated a conclusive prior test for determining on each individual, on a case by case basis whether or not psychiatric medication will be helpful or harmful to a person, which, when administered, make its effects, good, bad or indifferent, largely a matter of chance?
Aqua:
Let me ask these questions:
1) Would you agree that Scientology may help some people, while at the same time being unhelpful, unnecessary, and possibly even harmful to other people? If not, explain Lisa McPherson, Patrick Desmond, and the statistically-larger rate of suicides among Scientologists.
2) Do you agree that Scientology has not yet, or will ever due to KSW, formulated a conclusive prior test for determining on each individual, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not Scientology will be helpful or harmful to a person, which, when administered, makes its effects, good, bad, or indifferent, largely a matter of chance?
The difference between psychopharmacology and Scientology is that drugs are tested according to strict protocols as to efficacy and safety. Scientology has had no such testing. Also, the medical profession admits that neuroscience is an incomplete science, with many factors that cannot be accounted for with current knowledge. Scientology is promoted as being what mathematicians call “complete and consistent”, with known effects from each action. It has no control when the effects do not match what is expected.
When playing around with brain chemistry, I trust the scientific method rather than the word of a failed author.
This is really going to continue going around in circles.
But I am curious about your statement that there is a “statistically-larger rate of suicides among Scientologists.” What is your source for this?
Exactly! Shortly after I escaped the prison-like sea org life, I made a very good friend, turned out to be my new BFF, and she had had psych counseling. Out of respect to her I shut up and let her talk all she wanted. As she talked about it she brightened up, told me how it helped her get over an abusive relationship, and recommended to me a book written by the guy.
Inside I was shocked, but my auditor training told me to listen, not cop some attitude and not judge. Also that when she’s done talking, acknowledge this appropriately. Well, I was truly interested in what she said and it took no two-faced skill to tell her that was great and how happy I was for her.
There I was, seeing that there are good things to this psych stuff too. Also the woman who wrote “The Sociopath Next Door” is pretty awesome.
And an MD prescribed a med to a very elderly relative who was combative and angry and critical all the time (recent and fast flip in personality) and that med nipped that in the bud. It was amazing. The person felt better and slept better too. Why not let them take the meds in their last years to make it a little less miserable as their body shuts down bit by bit right out from under them, which is the most terrifying thing that could happen to a person.
So, Espiando, you got what you got out of it! Something helped you. I hear ya.
Espiando,
“Yes” to 1, and “Yes”, to 2.
On the other hand, I have observed that the administration of psychotropic drugs, as well as many other kinds of drugs including alcolhol, has many variables, and what works on or agrees with one person’s body chemistry does not necessarily work on another’s, which means, IMO, when the RIGHT (legal, psychotropic medication, or the right combination of them is located for EACH particular person it becomes science, but before that, its not science, but an art form, a kind of test on a live person, which has its successes and its risks.
Now, I’m not an auditor, so as a PC, my experience with Scientology processing (MY experience) has been that when the right process was run on me it was beneficial, and those times when the right processes were not run on me they were not beneficial and needed to be corrected but that such was done. I was benefitted by the Scientology processing done on me, and I received wins and benefits from the courses I did in Scientology.
As to whether Scientology processing should be called a science or an art form, the truth is, that I could care less. If something works for me, its works. I don’t care what its called. Call it “science”, call it “art form”, call it “peanut butter & jelly”, you know? And that goes for the practice of medicine and the dispensation of medication as well. Does it work? If it works, call it whatever you like!
And, by the way, I note that in your response you did not answer MY questions, but if you don’t want to that’s OK as I don’t want to try Mike’s patience too much.
Let me end by originating that IMO there’s nothing worse that can be done to a person than shooting down his or her tested, workable life solutions. I’ve had it done to me, and once, I did this to someone. Never again would I ever inval another like that, nor will I ever allow it to be done to me.
“A degraded being is not a suppressive as he can have case gain. But he is so OTS that he works for suppressives only. He is sort of a super-continual PTS beyond the reach, really, of a simple S&D and handled only at Section III OT Course.”
LRH’s spiritual engram theory of what is mentally wrong with people is factually un-scientific.
Scientology at the Xenu tragedy point (Xenu merely is the person who caused the 4th dynamic engram, an engram so extensive it takes doing OT 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to relieve a person of the full engram’s mental damage), is exactly also Scientology’s problem.
Scientology spokespeople are far from being allowed to transparently tell of their spiritual beliefs, that are the basis for wishing the end to psychiatry’s supposedly unworkable mental therapy.
Their Xenu story is something Scientologists who are trained do take seriously, at least those who have taken the time to think it all through!
The Xenu caused 4th dynamic engram is so pervasively underlying mental health spiritual turmoil people experience, the bigger deeper problem of Scientology, is they cannot ever prove the 4th dynamic engram, and that OT 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, today, are the long range solution to mental health issues that a thetan (person) experiences!
typo, “OTS” should be “PTS”
Another interesting issue is the ability to now place a date on the volcanic activity which creates the Hawaiian Island chain. Mauna Loa and Mauna Koa are both on the ‘Big Island’ of the chain which is also the most recent.
So if you were one of the Zenu prisoners which got stuck there, you may want to review your history to figure out how you could be placed in a volcano that did not exist at the time. Oh well, just some careless detail to mess up an otherwise great story.
All that spinning made me toss my cookies.
Careful… don’t step in that frisbee.
Give me a BREAK. David Miscavige has to look in a mirror
to see the biggest Psych on the Planet.
CCHR is in business to keep psychs and BIG PHARMA in Tall Clover.
David Miscavige made Boatloads of Cash from Eli Lily , D.M.s lawyers
made out like bandits also.
Quote from Rodney Dangerfield
Your Killing Me, Your Killing Me !!!!!!!
Jose–Do tell how DM made boatloads of cash from Eli Lily. I’m not challenging you on this, I’ve just never heard it (being one of those SO members sheltered from all that is bad) and would love to hear a little more actual fact brought into that big picture I worked so hard on back then! More lies I helped perpetuate. All I ever heard was that he and Yager and maybe others had stock in drug companies.
There was a settlement with the church. Eli Lilly paid the church an unspecified, confidential but substantial sum (substantial to the church at the time, a drop in the bucket to Lilly — probably their profits on a week’s worth of Prozac). Miscavige didn’t personally get a payoff, but he certainly used this as something else to prove what a savior he was and the “facility differential” he was due.
The settlement followed a series of full-page centerfold ads in USA Today which the CoS started running in I believe May of 1991, many of which attacked Eli Lilly, and actually did drive Lilly stock down, and affected their sales.
Miscavige subsequently gloated about a ‘settlement’ Lilly paid in return for the CoS agreeing not to run such ads again. COB’s report of this was in an Event video, I’m not sure which Event video, I’m afraid. He did not disclose the amount, but said “We were well pleased”. At the time I felt shocked and thought, “He took money!” Little did I know!
It was around the time of “The War Is Over” Event, but I am not sure that was the video I saw. I’m quite sure I watched it at home, so I believe it was broadly distributed, but I’m not sure.
He announced this at an event for sure. I believe it was on the Freewinds.
“OT III was just “taken from someone’s auditing notes” and is not part of “published” scientology.” That stuck out to me as another perfect example.
Yes, it is taken from Hubbard’s “auditing notes” and is a confidential issue. So although she is skating extremely thin ice, it is one of the best degrading acceptable truths I have seen to date.
“the best degrading acceptable truths I have seen to date.” +100% Too bad someone in the audience couldn’t clarify.
and anyone in the audience who cares enough to enter OTIII into a search engine will know that Sylvia was engaging in that most holy of $cientology acts of worship: telling acceptable “truths.”
For a lie to be easily accepted, it needs to be as close to the truth as possible.
Fantastic article Mike.
It took me approximately 25 years after the suicide of my father – while I was in the Sea Org – to realize …
Damn — IF ONLY they had had prozac OR something similar back then and NOT vellum which combined with alcohol made a very bad cocktail when he quit both.
Severe depression and paranoia set in and suicide followed about 6 months later.
For 25 years or so I used to say … well AT LEAST he didn’t die spiritually messed up by taking psych drugs.
GOOD GRIEF. I’d give nearly anything to have my father still around – EVEN IF still on psych drugs to enjoy his grandchildren and his young daughters he left behind (my 1/2 sisters).
————-
As a quick aside to Jonsty about Eastern thought not having a “devil” or having an “us VS them” component to those religions:
I’ll point to the “Maras” that the buddha had to overcome. The other religions I’m less informed about.
I believe every religion requires some “hope” and “explanation” of the unknowable or something to quell the human condition of death and suffering.
BUT — as I am no longer a buddhist or any “its” I will leave the arguments about religion to others more well versed than I am.
————
You have a keen writing skill and ability to point out the most glaring AND hidden problems within scientology.
I hope you continue to live long and proper!!! Along with your lovely family and dog!!
WIndhorse
Typo or auto-correct: Valium —- not vellum
Thanks Windhorse. So nice to hear from you. Been missing your wisdom…
I 2nd that sentiment, Windhorse.
“A comparison between Dianetics and Scientology and psychology and psychiatry is nonsense.”
In the early 50’s, LRH talked at great length about his understandings of Freud, Jung, Mesmer and Charcot, to name a few. In the first Briefing Course in ’61 he stated that PrepChecking achieved the results that “Freud and his squirrels” (particularly Jung, with his fixation on Druidism) had sought. Sprinkled elsewhere throughout his verbiage were the statements that a) one of his identities was a whole track psyche; and that because the general public were not differentiating psychology from Dianetics, he sought to “take it up a level” to drive home the differentiation.
From the above quote, it seems he negates a lot of his earlier statements.
Yes he (LRH) does change his mind. But I don’t see what is the problem with that? Have you not changed your mind over things in the last 30 years or so? Such is like saying Dianetics is false because Hubbard upgraded Book 1 of 1950 to R3RA of 1978″. People can and do change their minds – what’s the problem Is LRH not allowed to change his mind?
No, he’s not allowed to change his mind after 1965. He is Source, and changing his mind violates KSW.
He wrote it that way. I didn’t.
Mike, those HCOB’S from 1982….August 1982.. that was after I had left.. and LRH was in hiding and pretty much a mess. You think he wrote those then.. or did he write them earlier and release them then? I mean it sure sounds like him but I think he was too sick and was sure not in charge in 1982.
These are written by him. They went hand in hand with Way To Happiness. He was “off the lines”, hiding out in Creston, but he was definitely still in charge.
Why don’t they have a debate?
Co$: We’ve tried millions of times to do this and every time they refuse because they know we’re right and they’re scared to confront the truth.
Psych: I don’t want those crazy fuckers anywhere near me or to know anything about me.
Ex/Non-Co$: Co$ is a bunch of scared pussies that couldn’t debate anything on this subject without exposing their vile hatred of psychology and psychiatry and have it go public. It’s hate without debate.
Geez, talk about broad generalities and fear mongering. But I suppose LRH can get away with it because of his irrefutable “research” facts. Funny, he is never compelled to reveal his research notes.
Imagine if your PC spouted such hyper-critical tripe, what would your response be? How about, “What overt have you committed on psychs?” Imagine running that chain…
When that gal at this event starting telling the story of OT 3 and Sylvia said it was from someone who brought it up in session, and then she said, “we have to move on,” I was so hoping another attendee would rise up and keep talking about OT 3 as part of their scriptures. Sylvia scurried away from that subject like a rat that had just seen a hungry cat.
Yes they always try to get the subject off of OT III because it makes Scn look crazy.
Regarding the quote above that LRH said doctors were incompetent, he had a completely opposite statement in a different reference, one on “Assists” or “Touch Assists Correct Ones”. In that he says that if someone is badly injured your first course of action is to get the person medical help first and then only after the medical help, then would you continue with an assist program. And in another reference on illegal pcs and “Policies on Handling Ill and … PC;s” I can’t remember the entire title but it is the A to J Reference, LRH says that many pcs who look to be psychotic are simply in pain and need medical help. So he didn’t always discount medical doctors and in fact encouraged people to get medical help from them.
Cindy,
I think LRH really HAD TO make reference to MDs for physical problems or else he might have gotten accused of practicing medicine without a licence.
Had Flag properly applied that data Lisa McPhearson would still be alive.
Greta
Correct-a-mundo, Zephyr. CYA.
Cindy’s comment states it make scientology seem crazy. Can’t think why. LRH had researched the names of the planet and the supreme overlord from 75 million years ago so why would that seem crazy? Tommy Davis made the same comment comment about it being crazy but turned the tables to make it sound like it was John Sweeney that was crazed in the Panorama program interview with the esteemed members.
Another comment I would make on Sylvia’s presentation was her total fake surprise that there was one of her own faith present. The plant made his comment about how wonderful scientology was and then Sylvia said that was it – of course wanting to end on a positive note. But the moderator threw it open to a couple more questions so the OSA plot to end well was totally scuttled, Such a shame.
Those are good BPI quotes, Mike.
Here’s another:
““Doctors are often careless and incompetent, psychiatrists are simply outright murderers. The solution is not to pick up the pieces for them but to demand medical doctors become competent, and to abolish psychiatry and psychiatrists as well as psychologists and other famous Nazi criminal outgrowths.”
This is from the Illegal PC “Policies on Healing…” HCOPL, if I recall correctly.
And there are all the embarrassing, hidden data line references to the planet Farsec, which are the psych’s home planet, I believe.
I think Sylvia needed to give the audience a little whole track history lesson, along with a galactic geography lesson.
I mean if Scientology is really the technology to free mankind, then that speech she gave was a huge missed opportunity.
Alanzo
“I mean if Scientology is really the technology to free mankind, then that speech she gave was a huge missed opportunity.” Now, that’s funny and it says a lot.
First, a great article Mike. But I do want to comment on this quote, “But perhaps there is also some truth to the idea that every faith (whether it be classified as a religion or a cult) needs a ‘devil’ to oppose and fight for the salvation of mankind.”
One of the spiritual basics of Hindu/Vedanta/Buddhist/Taoist viewpoints is that creating any separateness or “us vs them” is a basis of suffering and problems. This is also seen in the Christian doctrine of loving others as thyself. I am not here to discuss or argue about what “love” means from a spiritual perspective. I only want to note that the “us vs them” viewpoint is not necessarily in all faiths. I do agree wholeheartedly, however, that creating an enemy or “devil” is clearly the woof and warp of cults, and in particular, Scientology.
LRH and DM both used this strategy to control others. Scientologists vs psychs, SO vs regular staff, those in vs apostates, you vs your case, SCN vs all other religions, SCN vs the government, and so on. For me, this viewpoint comes directly from LRH’s ser fac and ego: I alone have made it, I am right and you are wrong, I am better, you are inferior, etc. It fuels one’s own ego to be on the winning side, but it will never lead to spiritual growth or understanding.
I tend to believe that people like Sylvia “spin” their comments as they know, in their hearts, that the Church’s viewpoints are spiritually warped. There is no evaluation within as they are simply acting robotically, but deep down they do know. The dissonance is deafening and so they spin. It is true that part of the spin is to avoid reprisals from DM or others within the Church. But I also believe the spin is because they are unwillingly to openly communicate such distasteful truths that are held within the Church.
Joristy, your comments are extremely rational and can easily be backed up by simply looking honestly at most religions. And the Hindu/Vedanta/Buddhist/Taoist go back over 4000 years! There are real answers to life and living, but they are routinely ignored by most…or simply not available to them. Fortunately, I see that is changing, despite the plethora of bad news generally available to most. There is a huge gap between organized religions/cults and Spirituality. My own journey in scio was the intent to moving forward in spirituality, something which was highly personal to me. I got a tremendous number of gains in that area for which I was grateful. But one thing I quickly learned was that being thankful to LRH for my wins was incorrect. They were MY wins, the result not of the tech, the auditor or LRH, but the hard and honest work *I* was willing to do with the questions I was being asked. That, to me, was always missing in the way scio demanded my instant “success” response and generally ascribing that success to something outside myself. Once I’d had that cog, I only gave the success officer “froth” to satisfy the requirement. I most kept the real cognition/discovery, etc. to myself, then finding that not have acknowledged and ending it, oftentimes many more new awarenesses would surface over time, greatly expanding the original cog. I’ve continued that workable system ever since with my continuing studies into spirituality, leading to ??? I don’t know, nor do I believe anyone else can know for me, as Hubbard tried to do. So all in all, it was a good and valued journey.
Agreed.
Further, Scientologists need to simplify, and break a few of LRH’s rules, to become more transparent, and open to healthy change.
On the theoretical beliefs of Scientology, it’s to do with the engram, which is our long term spiritual bane!
The 4th dynamic engram is the largest bad recent incident which is connected to Scientologists’ beliefs that psychiatry is a very long ago continuing engramic problem, of people (thetans in humanoid bodies) on planets throughout universe history.
Scientology’s beliefs in 4th dynamic engram needs some public transparent explanation, as once it is explained, it does explain Scientologists’ overall feeling of skepticism of psychiatry, on top of the LRH’s other extensive public statements and final in life statements.
Scientology’s “devli” would obviously be Xenu, the person who caused the 4th dynamic engram!
Scientology from Dianetics to OT 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, seems consistent, spiritually theoretically, if simplified to the subject of the engram’s spiritual damage to us thetans (soul in the humanoid body we live in).
Xenu is merely the engram of magnitude perpetrator, not really some all powerful God like devil with any type of supernatural telekinetic powers that are traditionally considered in the Devil’s toolkit.
But I say this, knowing I don’t believe in the soul, nor that we are the thetan that we each are, in our humanoid body, and I don’t believe in the OT 3 theory, but it should all be explained, as then Scientology makes sense as a consistent spiritual practice.
Nice, Jonsty! And you’re are right regarding religions needing a boogeyman. Not all, but, most religions have their boogeymen. It’s an essential part to frame their experience in any religion as they being the good guys and the boogeymen being the bad guys. Many religions, like the cult itself, use fear to capture and control their flock. I realized many, many years ago that ANY organization that uses fear to keep their flock in place, is obviously false. Not only that, but, evil too.
Yeah I listened to this talk with great interest. I give her credit at least for having the balls to go in front of an audience at all. And knowing too the cameras were rolling. It’s a mugs game being any sort of Scientology spokesperson these days. There is much that is contradictory, false or so completely off the scale bizarre to the general public that she like others before would have to revert to “acceptable truths”.
On the matter of psychiatry my take is that LRH as in so much in Scientology took some grains of truth and extrapolated it into “unalterable scientific fact”. And worse, generalised it according to popularity with his audience.
He figured early on that slamming psychiatry went down well with Scientologists and gave him and the subject a perfect foil; the ultimate bogey men. Using words like obliterate eradicate destroy etc. is ramming home the now well implanted idea that this was the only obstacle to Scientology (good) conquering the bad (psychiatry). A neat trick well executed.
Sadly the seeds of truth he wrote about some of the most ill-informed practices of psychiatry get lost in the morass of layers of cult think and thought stopping over the top. So even any worthwhile message is going to get completely ignored by serious people and academics due to the extremist and fundamentalist “scriptures”.
Martin. I agree with you. I did an interview with Jeff for his podcast about this and made the same point about Sylvia. Frankly, she is the best the church has. She is in an impossible position. Really the only criticism that can be fairly leveled at her is that she has not walked away. What she said are really not her words, they are what are required to forward the party line.
And again, generalities: the psychs and psychologists. No specifics: ‘the source of crime”. Who? When? Where? And absolutes: “the only source of crime…”
As noted before, you put the attention on a made up enemy so your own followers can’t see the crimes you yourself commit plus, there will be always someone to blame as, after all, it has nothing to do with me.
Plus another wrong why- the Church is crumbling because of its own crimes, not because a few psychs went dishonest and misuse their knowledge by harming others.
Exactly, Silvia. Well said!