Haydn with Christie and me in Sydney 2010
This is a posting that was sent to me by Karen DeLacarriere written by Haydn James. She thought it was too good to be left as a posting in the Outer Banks Group on Facebook and asked me if I would like to post it here.
Haydn has been a friend of mine for more than 30 years. He is one of the nicest and most intelligent people I know. He wrote a little introduction and then his post follows.
He makes some interesting observations.
As you know I am pro the tech. I sat down one day to do a dispassionate evaluation of Scientology the subject and its operation past and present. The most sensible way to look forward being to analyze the past or making the same mistakes is guaranteed. This essay comes from just a part of it. It is not meant to laud or disparage anything or anyone but it does put a great many things into perspective. Haydn James
This is a part of an evaluation I did recently into Scientology expansion or lack of it.
When my wife and I were assigned from the Int base to a tiny, failing org in the UK (Birmingham) in late 1990, we managed to build a successful org over the next 15 years and we also got a chance to study the public, those that came into Scientology and those that didn’t.
After a couple of years of trying everything and failing miserably to get the org off the ground we came across some policies that seemed to lay out the scene we were running into. Their use became a key part of the success but also, in studying out the scene further, provided some amazing insight into the percentage of the population for whom Scientology was real.
There are LRH policies from 1965 too long to quote here (HCO PL 22 March, 1965 CURRENT PROMOTION AND ORG PROGRAM SUMMARY MEMBERSHIP RUNDOWN and HCO PL 7 April 1965 BOOK INCOME) that state: Scientology was planned, geared and rigged for those that could reach for, read a book and reach further for services. It was all meant to be a test of reach (or to put it another way, a test of interest or reality).
Then there was a LRH Publications Org Issue which stated: “It takes 25 book sales to make one Scientologist.”
The pubs org used to pound into us, “It takes 25 book sales to make one Scientologist!”
By direct observation and action over many years this proved to be totally true. Only one in twenty five book buyers (people who bought a book out of genuine interest and were not just forced to buy one) would become Scientologists. That’s four percent of those with enough interest in Scientology to reach for and buy a book.
Of course far from everyone bought Scientology basic books. I know that in advertising circles a response to an ad campaign would be considered phenomenal if it was a small percentage of the population. So if you really advertised the key LRH books, the best you could hope to achieve in any given town in terms of making Scientologists would be a small percent of four percent of the population.
To give perspective, let’s just say the best response to an ad campaign you could get was three percent of the population. In a town like Birmingham, England which had a population of one and a half million people, if the perfect book ad campaign was put together, with perfect buttons, that reached the whole population enough times to get the message across, you would get three percent of the population buying a book. In other words it would result in 45,000 book buyers. Per the proven rules, of those, only 2400 would become actual Scientologists (four percent). That’s it, 1800 actual Scientologists from a town of 1.5 million people. So, take away all the control, effort and heavy sales, the percentage of the population that are truly interested, when exposed to Scientology, is a fraction of one percent.
I can’t say my calculation is accurate but my facts and observations are over many years. Any way you want to cut it the percentage of the population truly interested in Scientology is a small percentage of a small percentage.
By the way, the guys that had real interest were obvious, you couldn’t keep them out of the org, they came in clutching their books, reaching hard for service. And, in my experience their reality on Scientology was so strong that in most cases no amount of negative press etc. could dull their reach. That has proved true right up to the present.
But of course there were other types of people that made their way into Scientology.
Out of org desperation many were press ganged into doing something but left right away or sometime later, a sort of org revolving door, eventually they became just a name in central files.
There were people who had little reality on Scientology as a whole and had no desire to do the bridge but who had strong reality on a particular personal problem. They came in to get their problem handled and when it was handled they left. They might return a few years later with another problem and they might not but that’s how it went with them. Some, a few of them, returned so many times they eventually reached for the bridge.
Then there were the friends, spouses, kids and family of Scientologists who got roped into it one way or another. But it became clear, just because someone was a friend of, married to a Scientologist or born to one did not mean they had any strong reality on it or real interest in it, not at all. In fact the odds suggest they wouldn’t though some did of course.
So, what you might call the Scientology community of any given org was made up of four different categories of people and only one of them had a real reality on Scientology. And they were in a minority.
Our conclusions even at that time were: 1. The vast majority of people don’t have a strong reality on Scientology. The percentage that do is miniscule, a fraction of one percent. That’s just the way it is. 2. Don’t try to force square pegs into round holes, it only causes trouble for all concerned.
I am not sure why this is the way it is, it certainly has nothing to do with income bracket, IQ, education level or anything else I could see, but nothing then or since has convinced us otherwise.
The people for whom Scientology is really real is a very small minority indeed.
GOING CLEAR SCREENING
Thanks to everyone who came last night.
And to Mark Bunker for video’ing the Q and A session in very difficult circumstances. And to the three scientologists who showed up to demonstrate the truth of the film.
You can see it at Tony Ortega’s blog this morning. He is much more energetic than I in bringing you the news 🙂
I fully agree.
In my line of work I deal with hundreds of people every year.
Simply put – there is a very small percentage of people who are at a much higher level.
Look at percentages- great athletes, scientists, super models, writers, artists, successful honest people. The number is so tiny that one is lucky to meet a handful out in the wild.
Scientology isn’t for everyone… The church isn’t for anyone. Those of you who truly believe in this subject I consider you all part of that small percentage of truly capable beings- spiritually speaking.
Davila, scientology is certainly not for everyone. It isn’t for me although it used to be for me. I believed in it enough to be willing to dedicate my life to it and sign a billion year contract. Alas, believing in something requires believing what it promises. Scientology doesn’t deliver what it promises but some people have settled for and become content with something else than what was promised. If that something else is unshakable peace, knowledge that the universe is within you, and the understanding that what you are has never been damaged or compromised and therefore is not in need of repairing, then they have realized the timeless knowledge taught by the sages past and present. Ron Hubbard apparently didn’t grasp this understanding and invented his own thing, “scientology”. Scientology is an incomplete teaching and contains many falsehoods in its theory. I say this from the platform of an ancient discipline called, “advaita vedanta.” I am able to defend this knowledge against any criticisms and take pleasure in doing so. I have never known a scientologist who could say the same thing about scientology.
What’s real to you it’s real to you. We can agree on that. No disrespect. I’m happy you have something that you love.
The definition of “real” is that which is non-changing and ever-present. It isn’t a matter of what is real for “me”. What is real isn’t a subjective or individual experience. No offense taken.
Roger, what a coincidence that you should mention “advaita vedanta.” Just recently I watched a couple of youtube vids of Tony Parsons and he mentioned this discipline as one of his sources. I read a couple articles on his website too. Pretty intriguing stuff, but I haven’t learned enough yet to see how this brand of non-dualism works in life, as regards how one actually operates. Rupert Spira is another Brit whose videos I’ve watched a couple of. I think he may make more sense to me personally because he isn’t confrontational the way Parsons is. But if I were over there in England I would probably go to one of his “meetings.” If you haven’t done so yourself, I think you should! 🙂 Btw, do you mind saying what training you had in Scientology?
I’m very familiar with Tony Parsons and Rupert Spira. Personally, I dislike Tony rather intensely as he ends up confusing people more than anything. Rupert is a good teacher in my opinion. He and my teacher (who teaches classical, old school vedanta) are friends. The teaching isn’t about how to get what you want and how to achieve your goals. Advaita can’t be understood from the viewpoint of scientology but scientology can be understood from the viewpoint of advaita. This can be easily demonstrated but I have no intention of utilizing this blog to achieve that purpose. I invite people to contact me personally if they wish to discuss the matter in detail: roger.hornaday@gmail otherwise google it, that’s what I did.
Roger, I will probably take you up on your kind offer to communicate by email, once I’ve become more familiar with the subject. Thanks so much!
This thread on this post about Hyden dissertation has been a very interesting and helpful debate indeed. These type of discussions are what is needed and wanted for the Still-ins , Indies, and UTRs to have enough viewpoints to evaluate in their decision making process regarding the value of Scientology or lack thereof.
Scientology makes for a VERY interesting subject to research ; a cultic study : “Why do people become cult(ish) about knowledge and freedom ?”. Scn is the most long lasting cult of this century. Other cults come and go , and with time are easily recognizable by others as being illogic fixations on plain absurdities, but Scn ? wow! , Scn is one of its kind ; a truly unique cult.
As I have discussed before in this blog , Scn has many principles which are factual and helpful. Many Anti(s) fail to recognize this , and just attribute people’s fixation on Scn as just a manifestation of gullibility and being sort of “hypnotized”. That viewpoint lacks competent observation from my perspective. Humans , generally speaking, can’t be fooled by anything for so long. Cults usually remain active and insidious to the degree that they are not being exposed by the Media or by books. But once they are, they usually cease to exist, at least to any appreciable degree, as others are sort of “de-hypnotized” about them. But Scn ? wow! , it just keeps on existing no matter how many books have been written about it and how many blogs were created to expose its harmful parts. And even Scientologists exposed to such knowledge , sometimes never wake up until several months and even years has passed after such an exposure. Isn’t that a truly fascinating subject ?
That Scn has always been a cult, can’t really be intelligently debated against. But being a cult isn’t an immediate assertion that all knowledge coming from it is misguided or non factual ; that conclusion doesn’t immediately follows. My thesis is , to just put it in a mild way as it is really a fact to me, that LRH compiled (and even expanded upon) many workable truths that are timeless as opposed to relative truths that might only depend on a specific set of circumstances. But all mixed and mingled with such truths, are many lies dressed up as “facts” and “freedom”. This duality , this dichotomy has the tendency to fixate the attention , and to prevent competent observation and free will. Thus, one can become stuck to it for years, and even for a whole lifetime.
One solution that I have been working on for quite some time is to create a blog/website combined with a book that will prompt others to look at the subject from a more emotional unattached viewpoint , and help them to rehabilitate their willingness to think for themselves , and their ability to evaluate correct importance. This strategy must be free of misemotion and must be as unbiased and impartial as it is humanly possible. All assertions must be backed up by documented evidence and by exposing them to such forgotten and widely misunderstood concepts such as “Human Rights” , “Independent thought” , “Logic” , “Scientific methodology” , “Cultic studies” , “History of religion” , etc.
The purpose of such a book and website is not to get Scientologists to necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water. Such an attempt would also include me in the category of authoritarian approaches to knowledge and freedom of thought , and would make me no more different than the cult leaders. The VPF (Valuable Final Product) of this liberating endeavor is not a Scientologist , an Anti, an Ex, or any such epithets , but rather an “individual with a rehabilitated free will who is willing to evaluate data by himself and to think for himself rather than to blindly follow any unevaluated data and authority”. Whether the individuals decide to use or not Scn as a part or as a whole, or whether they just throw it away or just follows it as a Faith, is of no interest to me at all. I am tired of everyone (including myself) attempting to tell others what to think about anything, or in what to believe in. We must outgrow our own desires to be right, and
embrace the noble and incredible liberating virtue of letting others be themselves , and allow them to grow on their own.
TC
Hi Thetaclear, Just read your post, and did it ever connect! Thank you,Ever,Ann.
You are most welcome, dear. I attempted to e-mail you but I just couldn’t get through with my Android ; so I’ll atttempt it tomorrow from the computer itself. Take care.
With love,
TC
Hi Theta Clear,Thank you,please no hurry about posting back.I was blocked from Mike’s Blog all Sunday.Fixed now which is good! I look forward to hearing from you when convenient.Much-much Love Peter,Ann.
Sure , dear. :-)))
“Humans , generally speaking, can’t be fooled by anything for so long.”
A detailed study of history will show you the opposite.
Yeah, I think Mark Twain said something supporting that, like:
It is easy to fool a person into believing something, but very difficult to then make him realize that he was wrong.
-Any given person will adamantly defend his or her beliefs, as nearly the whole human brain is dedicated to keeping its own construction of reality in place. Scientology is so monumentally bad, as in “harmful”. They take your trust and so thoroughly violate it. It is a church dedicated to driving you, as in your mind, right into the ground so that they can then control and command your every deed and action, making sure that action serves the benefit of ITSELF, putting and keeping your needs and wants and desires trapped there, on the bottom of the proverbial totem pole. Good to see the whole thing come tumbling down now. It is a good day to be an Anti-Cult Activist, tell you what.
You said it MM!
i like little m (s) so humble
May be so.
Haydn, Great to hear from you and by the looks of that healthy happy picture and the straight forward article you are doing well which is a heart warmer as so often I think of the guys I worked with and knew and loved and wonder how they are 🙂
I found your data interesting and helpful to understanding. When I left AOLA mid 1996 we were still going pretty strong on the Income, New starts, Bodies in the Shop, and OTs made but not as well as 1989/90 when our Captain Ivan left. The book sales off account were taking more and more of the income starting mid 80s leaving the spendable/corrected Gross Income low which as you know made for some pretty dreary Financial Planning into the wee hours even when the income was high. Since mid 80s statistics became very important (fear of RPFs and miss-use of ethics and justice) and more and more force was used from most every angle. Likely AOLA was feeling the problem of not enough going on the feeder lines especially after the Mission Network was stabbed to death.
Seems Int Management never found the correct why on their Evals…. Ahhh well.
Again, I’m happy to see you doing so well and look forward to more 🙂
[You knew me as Kruchko. Jack and I made it 24 years until I simply up and moved away in a little travel van and never came back]
I loved the way Sara Goldberg raised her voice at her ex husband and called him out for being a deadbeat father, who also disconnected from his son by text message in front of everyone. He got what he deserved and I would have done the exact same if I were in her situation. Way to go Sara!
Thanks Pepper. I’ve been waiting for that opportunity for a long time. It felt good to be able to let him hear the TRUTH!
And it’s interesting how he brought himself to that place and time to hear it 🙂
Good point. Very interesting, Pepper.
Just finished watching the Q&A. Excellent discussion. Both Mike and Sarah were well spoken, authoritative yet calm and dignified. Hecklers be damned, well done all. Information and discussion, sharing of information and knowledge. Lovley.
Related to Haydn’s post, here’s an excerpt from the PDC lectures:
“At any one time on Earth there were not more than about 10,000 people of a caliber, that was sufficient to do a little steering or leading…There’s only about 10,000 of them really.
“And below that level you have something in the neighborhood of about 100,000 or 150,000, 200,000 people who have a competence of assimilation. That’s about all.
“You can count then on those people directing others or leading them…
“And if you have a savage enough truth, or a beautiful enough truth, they can go through, but don’t ever try to get a reasonable enough truth, because you won’t ever talk to reason…
“So therefore you have two levels of appeal which are quite direct and quite direct indeed is you just go ahead and you work; you don’t try to tell anybody anything beyond perhaps you intimate to them once in a while that you might be able to do something for them.
(PDC-61 How to Talk to Friends About Scientology 18.12.52 – Philadelphia Doctorate Course)
marildi, I know you as a highly intelligent person so I wonder why you would offer LRH quotes when you could make real observations yourself. Is it just laziness? If so, I am sympathetic to your cause, having something of a lazy streak myself. Just for fun, let me wonder out loud where Mr. Hubbard got his figures. 🙂
Hey Roger, I know you as a nice guy who is also intelligent – except for the bias of a fundamentalist scientist. 🙂
o – ) (friendly cyclops)
“Just for fun, let me wonder out loud where Mr. Hubbard got his figures.”
He just invented them, dear Roger, as he did with a hundred of other stuff.
TC
After more than 20 years of study and auditing and having endured through irrational misconducts of CofS staff, I achieved the goal of OT8. Therefore I feel to have the privilege to write my opinion on LRH tech. I cannot say that my experience was completing neative. I reached some wins, but all those wins were not persistent and as soon as I was going through study and auditing I was enjoing those wins, but now, after several years I decided to stop it, I lost all of them. And I do not regret it, because I realized that I am no longer under the hypnotic effect of that tech.
Hi Norman Rockwell,I thought your post was very interesting and well written.I understand what you had happen regarding after going Clear & OT.I am glad you are out.Ann.
MiKe and Haydn, thank you for this article. Also, that’s a wonderful photo Mike.
hi everyone, i’m a never in, commented a couple of times and read this blog daily, because I honestly think that all of you here are a supportive and smart group of people who do genuinely care about the world and its people.
my heart breaks for those of you who have family members who have disconnected from you, especially those of you whose children have, because you are the ones who mostly brought your kids into the COS, either by joining while your children were young or by having your kids while you were in and raising your kids into that environment. you were doing what you thought was best at the time and then to have your children be indoctrinated into thinking you’re SP’s or horrible people now that you’ve left must just be the worst part of the whole thing. I truly feel for you all and hope that one day your kids (and parents, sisters, brothers, grandparents etc) will realize that it’s the COS that’s the suppressive being and that they can walk out to the loving arms of their families.
Sara Goldberg’s part of Going Clear just kills me and when that dick head at the screening was yelling at her and she shouts “they tore my family apart!” was just the most clear example of the pain and suffering that the COS brings down on good people. keep talking and hoping and believing and one day they will come back to you.
Mike, congratulations to you and Sara! You both remained cool under pressure. Actually Mike, you looked relaxed. Especially when they started in on you about your mom and you going to her house. I could almost feel a collective eye roll from the audience!
You looked very at ease and confident. The exact opposite of how you appeared when you were speaking with John Sweeney (the ‘utter rubbish’ conversation).
I know if someone tried to throw my mother in my face or if I had a deadbeat ex-husband show up, I might lose my cool. But you two were unflappable. The Scibots ran out with their tails between their legs. So much for confront and shatter tech. As the kids might say, that was another EPIC FAIL for the Co$!
I appreciate Haydn’s ideas on the numerical appeal that scientology (or anything else marketed aggressively) may have. Of course, these ideas would apply to a brand that people feel “neutral” about when first introduced to it. A brand that has people reacting with “Oh, I hadn’t heard of this. Maybe I should try it.” Whether it’s attributed to the efficacy of the “tech” or to the “C”oS organization only, however, that ship has clearly sailed. We’re dealing with a toxic brand here.
But, leaving aside the obvious corruption, the rapacious sales techniques and the character of the leader of the current organization, it seems to me that scn itself, as conjured up by Hubbard, is ultimately a dead end–by definition. It’s incapable of being more than a dead end. This applies whether it’s in the hands of the “church,” the independents or even individuals with no affiliation practicing the “tech.”
On the positive side, a person may well experience “wins” when starting the practice of scn (however they do that). Why? Because a person who enters such a regimen is highly motivated to begin with. Why else would they choose to immerse themselves in something that, taken at face value, is “odd,” to say the least. (which is not to say that scn is the only religious, philosophical or therapy practice that appears “odd” to the initiate.)
For many people this will be the first time that they live something more meaningful than the “unexamined life.” They will experience–aside from the placebo effect and the reassurance coming from a sense of belonging to a group, any group–a sense of hope, progress and most importantly, certainty. However, Hubbard’s “philosophy” is ultimately a house of cards that he (not the independents or the corporate “C”oS) constructed.
Therefore, several problems will raise their head all too quickly:
1. Hubbard was a greedy man. Hard sales were NOT instituted by Miscavige but go right back to the founder.
2. Hubbard was a “not emotionally healthy” man (to put it politely and compassionately). The ever-shifting “case” that scilons are encouraged to work is ultimately a reflection on Hubbard projecting his own needs and struggles onto others as his “research” developed.
3. Hubbard was a vain man. He insisted on being “source.” This illusion (particularly in light of his rampant plagiarism) can only be maintained as long as the information flow to a scn practitioner is carefully controlled. As soon as scn adherents discover that just about any component of scn was pre-existing already, and that the “research” was done by others, the illusion disintegrates.
4. Hubbard was a dishonest man. Once again, as soon as information control fails, it becomes all too obvious that he was dishonest about too many aspects of his own life to deserve trust in his work.
5. Hubbard was stuck in the 50s Cold War mentality. Certainly, one would not blame a person for being a product of their times, but the entire organization, its rigidity, information control, totalitarianism, forms of enforcing discipline and modes of disciplining gave rise to the Miscavige regime. Dave did not invent any of this.
6. Along the same lines, Hubbard was the originator of the us vs them mentality. Scn needs an enemy. The enemies Hubbard chose, are ultimately untenable:
– Psychs: An odd choice if one considers how much of scn is “borrowed” from that profession. Even more odd, when trying to promote a conspiracy by psychs. How credible can this idea be once the initial excitement of scn wears off?
– Media: Another odd choice. Ultimately, Hubbard was in the information business himself: Pay me and I will deliver vital information to you. So if information is key to survival, how can you cut off people from information outside of what you want them to see?
– Government/society: On one hand, scn purports to enable people to live better lives in society by promising them tools for communication and prosperity. On the other hand, the world where they will allegedly thrive is made up of fearsome wog’s? This is bound to lead to a Jonestown-like siege mentality. Or to the recognition that wog’s are really not all that bad and doubts whether this enemy is actually real.
7. Hubbard was an impostor. Claims to the “scientific” character of his philosophy as well as his claims of being a life-long jack of all trades fall apart rather quickly. Promises of guaranteed results were vacuous. Either he moved the goal posts (by re-defining what “clear” meant), or he added more hurdles that one had to clear in order to get to those results. Either way, it’s a bait and switch scheme–and people are bound to catch on once the initial thrill is gone.
8. Hubbard was a con man. He dealt in certainty and fear. Great for making a sale, but both end up being poor motivators in the long run.
9. Hubbard was a bad example:
– Health: Despite his phenomenal claims of mastery over MEST, he was a hypochondriac, plagued with phobias, wore glasses (and hid it), abused substances, and a stranger to basic physical and dental care. Even if one finds a way to rationalize his Vistaril use, this is clearly not a man exhibiting the results he claimed
– Ethics: To put it in a nutshell, don’t leave your wallet or your wife around LRH
– Family: LRH’s family (families) was a mess. As are those of most of the prominent proponents of scn, such as Cruise, Travolta, Alley, Miscavige, and–by all accounts–many in the Sea Org. Relationships and family are vexing and difficult, no doubt. But it’s hard to sell the idea of being a phenomenal winner when the evidence proclaims otherwise in such dramatic terms!
All of these reasons (and a few I forgot to include) make it impossible to believe that the problem with scn just lies in the allegedly aberrant way that Miscavige and the “C”oS are administrating LRH’s legacy. If anything, I would argue that Miscavige in many ways is a “chip off the old block.”
As I mentioned, I find it easy to believe that scn may offer a few initial “wins.” But it also seems to me that it is a system that people will either become a slave of, or one that they will eventually outgrow. If they do the latter, they may retain some of the positive things they learned. Most likely, they will discover that they could have learned these things in any number of other places, such as therapy, self-help groups, mainstream spiritual practices, education or other “wog” means. They could have done so without enduring the us vs them mentality and unquestioning dependence on “source.”
So this is where I disagree with Haydn. I am not so worried about scn being “real” to people. I am a lot more concerned for those whose only “reality” is dependent on scn. This is not a problem of “reaching people” (marketing), or of the little dictator having run off the rails, or of services being re-packaged and re-sold. As far as I can see, this is a problem of Hubbard himself and the parameters he established for something that couldn’t help but become an oppressive cult.
PS: If you have read this far, you have my gratitude for considering my thoughts on this matter, and rewarding my labors with your attention. You also have my apologies for “putting it all out” at once (or being long-winded, if you prefer). Thanks for reading!
“scn may offer a few initial ‘wins’ ”
A con man first needs to establish confidence. There’s gotta be some ‘bait’ before the ‘switch’.
Hi threefeetback,I really liked this. Boy was there a tanker load of bait before the switch! Love,Ann.
Hey Tood, this was an excellent dissertation about the subject called Scientology : excellent indeed. You managed to cover all points and angles as to why it was doomed to fail since its beginnings. The seed of death was insidiously growing within it , like a virus feeding off his host for years without him noticing it until the infection had already spread too much. There is some truth in the saying , “Too good to be true”. Scn always portrayed itself as a novel perfection that held the solutions , not only to any ills and problems , but also the solutions to even death itself as it allegedly transcended it.
One point that you might have missed in your analysis though , is that even if many of its principles were actually borrowed from other earlier and ancient philosophies , the fact of LRH having compiled all those truths and put them in lay man’s terms , added a great advantage to Scn over other philosophies as now one was able to find most of life’s truths in one single place. Scn is a contradiction in itself in that it contain many workable truths and solutions to life and livingness , coupled with an authoritarian approach to knowledge which makes it nearly impossible to get any lasting freedom from it. As you well put it , one has to be a really trained mind so as to be able to not get lost in the traps inherent to it. As you so eloquent summarized it :
” So this is where I disagree with Haydn. I am not so worried about scn being “real” to people. I am a lot more concerned for those whose only “reality” is dependent on scn. This is not a problem of “reaching people” (marketing), or of the little dictator having run off the rails, or of services being re-packaged and re-sold. As far as I can see, this is a problem of Hubbard himself and the parameters he established for something that couldn’t help but become an oppressive cult.”
You are a trully free thinker , dear Todd. Take care , and thanks for your excellent post.
Best regards,
Peter
As Todd stated, “a system that people will either become a slave of, or one that they will eventually outgrow”.
Or a third option can be to learn to use its workable parts and lose the rest. That’s what I did, and it worked just fine for me.
TC
Hi Todd Cray,You are welcome.I read all your post twice and thought you did a great job explaining your viewpoint.Ron was not what he appeared,that is for sure.I love that we can write our viewpoints here without having the absolute fear of being thrown to the wolves and scrubbing toilets etc.Love,Ann.
Really outstanding post. Thanks for that.
As a Christian Spiritualist and never having been a Scientologist, I still understand how brave you and Sara are to be willing to sacrifice part of your personal life to fight this fight. I wish I could have been there for the event. Thank you for being you and I’m grateful that your current families support you in your fight. God bless(whatever form God is for you).
Hi Jo, Thank you and good to meet you.Your post was a lovely light.Ann.
Thank you Jo.
I think Haydn made some very good and valid observations. The statistics are very interesting. References to LRH writings which agree to his observations is anecdotal as far as I am concerned and not of importance. What is of importance is that whatever personal spiritual benefits or altruistic goals you hold out to folks, so few see value and reach for it. This does not just apply to scientology. I think it has broad application. Other churches and organizations that promote personal improvement would not fare any better, in my opinion. As Haydn pointed out, the ones who want it, really want it. You cannot keep them away. It reminds me of a saying I read today; ” Religion is for those who fear hell. Spirituality is for those who have been through hell”. There could never have been a juggernaut that would have propelled scientology to prominence. Aside from its own failings as an organization, the numbers who would reach and stay are just not there. Its only a juggernaut in its own mind, its own hype.
Thank you Mike sand Sarah for the great Q & A. I’m just sorry I couldn’t be there in person. It is Excellent!
I wish you could have been there too, deElizabethan. 🙂
Well done to yourself and Sara for the Q&A last night, Mike. Freedumb mag for the “facts”? I honestly felt a bit sorry for those bubble dwellers.
Yes, those bubble dwellers presented a pretty pathetic performance. You could see the big guy strutting around in frustration (he couldn’t keep in his seat – bad body language) as his realised his well rehearsed script was ineffectual as well as realising he was told, “your time is up, you’ve had your say, quiet now”. At that point he really needed to blow the area. And that last comment by the other guy about the church pays taxes – WTF!
You just know they are going to crash and burn big time when the penny drops for them. Yes, I honestly felt sorry for them too, so much loyalty pointed in the wrong direction. But hey, they packed their own chute!
The video of last night’s big event in Palm Harbor shows who is winning. Sara and Mike, terrific job, and thank you for doing this. I’m delighted the word is getting out about the toxicity of Scientology, and especially in Pinellas County.
And as to Haydn’s analysis, it’s well thought out.
Haydn will be happy to know that his numbers, from a marketing standpoint, are well on the high side. 4% is well above the norm for a successful campaign, and even that is typically off of a selected target audience– when you take kids, older people and others who would not this kind of purchase decision out of the mix, the numbers will drop pretty significantly. It will further drop substantially when you consider that you have to reach them somehow– mail, tv, digital, etc.
Further reduce the numbers due to the toxicity of the brand. Scientology won’t pull as well as, say, a Target ad.
And repeat purchase numbers drop even further.
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Scientology to clear even Fort Harrison Avenue. At least, not in the way you mean, Davey.
Haydn James nails the sales point for $cientology. Les Dane would be proud.
Dianetics is the qualifying standard that potential recruits have to jump over to get into the scam. It is so poorly written and so filled with false equivalency and cognitive dissonance that anyone who can accept it as gospel is indeed ready for auditing and the resulting mind trap. It is the same way with the Nigerian Prince scam with its poor English. Any one who can get over the poor English is ripe for the scam.
Mind trap it is, one that you do to yourself. I can see where the intro ‘courses’ catch people. They give structure to human interactions that some people lack. Throw in promises of stupor powerz and a self fulfilling structure that gives status to those who reach the vaunted levels of Clear and OT and you have a ‘family’ ready to take you in and take your money.
One need not be weak minded or nuts to join in, at some point in their lives most people can be reached with the message that $cientology promises. Promises, but never delivers. ‘That ruin you have will be handled on the next level’. Or the level after that. The moving target part of the scam is easy to dismiss, but hard to see at the time it is used.
Lron and $cientology have no mystery sandwich to sell any more. The internet has laid bare that sandwich, and it is not as yummy as it once was. Tom Cruise and his couch jumping, psych busting, auto accident helping stories fixed that very well.
I wonder what penance TC is doing for that? Big being that he is, does DLHDM have the balls to make him start talking about the joys of Lron again? I don’t think TC could ever do that. He burned a lot of bridges the last time spoke out. He can’t afford to put that target on his chest again.
I don’t see any other clam able to ever go the couch jumping route again. The mystery sandwich has got to remain a mystery to work. And the internet killed that mystery around 1996.
Loved watching the video of Mike on the theater Q and A. Mike, your communications skills are of the highest standards and I can see, a natural talent born unto you. You are on Par with Anthony Robbins as a public speaker.
Glad I wasn’t there when the screamer went off, but he did come off like a loony from the crowd. Just the WORST P.R, EVER for the Church, after a screening of that film highlighting stalkers and haters!!!!!!!!!!!!
DM’s motivator flow has grown so big, he sucked Jim Carrey’s girlfriend into it last week. Someone should label him like they label hurricanes so people can evacuate from his area!
P.S. Such as, over the radio, and from helicopter, “Miscavige motivaor flow moving eastbound on Interstate 15”, type of thing.
Hurricane Miscavige, a Magnitude 5 shit storm.
Wow! Great post and commentary! A bit of sunshine for me! I spent time watching also. Most of what Haydn says adds up as the way I saw it too. And not just with public, with staff. I spent six years talking to Scientologists from all around the world. There were spouses and family involved just as a “common adventure” thing. One guy who’s father was an opinion leader in another country, went all the way through OT8, because it was “important to his father”. Then he promptly went on with his life with out much ado.
This caused Scientologists trauma too. One guy on service got his cousin involved, when his cousin finished OT3, and decided to become a Rabbi, the one who bought him in was crushed. “How could he do that?” He wailed to me? “As opposed to what, selling clothing like you?” I asked. : “He is out helping his community, in his own way, why are you turning that into a tragedy?”
The same thing happened with staffers. They ended up staying or joining staff because of family or spouses. To relocate. For green cards. For bonus’. For a host of reasons. I would say the same 1% were there to cornerstone a movement. I myself was not one of them, I was only curious and looking for adventure. Probably one step up from people who looking to get a green card. There were even guys on staff to avoid paying child support. Mike Napier, the Captain of the Freewinds, watched his wife walk the plank and he kept on sailing!
Laughter!
As I mentioned to someone earlier today, a lot of people think they are on the same path as someone else, when they are only crossing paths. All we have in common is that we crossed paths with Hubbard. We came in from different paths and we left on different paths. People change. You can’t expect everyone to be “on the same path” as you, and beat them down when are not and never will be. We all just crossed paths. Intersections are busy places and change swiftly. Road rage happens. Happy trails!
Love this post. Happy trails to all.
According to Wikipedia: Wayne Walter Dyer was an American self-help author and motivational speaker. His first book, Your Erroneous Zones, is one of the best-selling books of all time, with an estimated 35 million copies sold to date.
35 million people (at least) crossed paths with Wayne Dyer.
Dianetics used to be touted as the number one best selling self-help book EVER. I wondered why they quit using that PR line.
Supposedly some 25 million copies were sold. We all know that close to half of those were sold by PUBs to orgs which let them go moldy in their basements when they were forced to buy thousands of the newest editions. Many were sold to FSMs who still have them in their garages or who gave them away for free or (one I know of) threw a couple of hundred into a local recycling bin.
How many people have crossed paths with the Co$? Who really knows. Nothing but false or padded stats to count.
I crossed paths with Dyer about a year ago when I was looking for a good translation of the Tao. He’s okay.
I’ve just crossed paths again with YOU. Hello!
I took a religion class in university (I was interested and it fit the time slot I had). When they mentioned Scientology, I was interested, because of the hoopla they caused in Florida when they landed in Clearwater. When I heard, for the first time ever, that it was L. Ron Hubbard, I was dumbfounded–I read a LOT of science fiction in high school and while Hubbard was a prolific writer, he wasn’t a very good one. I read some of his stuff but mostly I skipped his stories that made it into anthologies. If you go back to that science fiction world, everyone seemed to know that Hubbard had “issues”. A former Crowley follower, abusive to his girlfriends and spouses, a little “touched in the head”. The fact that he had founded a “religion” was unbelievable. I had to write a paper on Dianetics, which meant I actually had to read it. At the time, I mentally put Scientologists in the same trash can as Moonies. I didn’t understand how rational people could be sucked into this. Now I have a better understanding–but there’s still a “what the hell?–thing for me.
Just saw the video on Ortega’s site. I thought it was very good and well worth look. You did good Mike.
Mike, I thought the overview you gave on the trajectory of Scientology was very well reasoned. Sara Goldberg also, was very eloquent and moving in her comments.
The assclowns who spent hours “drilling” their “confront and shatter” routine failed, not only in their effort to derail, but also they failed to simply understand that there is no longer any debate to be had concerning Scientology.
It is a settled issue.
Simply put, the public knows it is toxic
Thank you both, and a shout out to the wonderful Mark Bunker for the video.
Mike, I just got done watching Mark Bunker’s video of you and Sarah! You two did a magnificent job of laying out the facts. Both of you were so professional. The three idiots are just that. Suffice to say they made complete asses of themselves. Especially the one (Lee?) who kept yelling, “Go to FreedomMag.org!” Yep, Freedom Magazine…reminds of Pravda in Russia. Complete and utter propaganda.
I hope at some point, many of us can gather in Clearwater and hang out with you and your family for a day or so. That’s my dream…..
Oh, I’d love to share that dream. Nice b-b-q’s near by and pay Flag a visit, all friendly of course, I did enjoy their grilled salmon at the Sandcastle. As Mike said, “Scientology is a toothless tiger now.” But alas my active protesting days have come to an end with encroaching oldness. Painting a flowery peace sign on my laptop and writing in caps is the extent of my activism these days. I was a devil as a young’un though, pity about the betrayal of scientology, it showed so much promise.
I’m with you on this one OS Dude!
You are so funny, I yawnalot! You just crack me up! But, I really would like to get to Clearwater to see Mike and his family and maybe wander down to Cult Town. If you’re not in your 70s yet, then we’re very close in age. Surfing keeps me young….
Dave,
What happens when your thugary completely flips from being intimidating to sheer entertainment?
Watched the Q & A on Tony O. Bravo Mike and Sara .!
Preview of things to come with release of Leahs book.
That’s a really nice photo of you three, you all look wonderful. 🙂 I thought that was a good analysis of the situation, providing real info, very interesting post indeed. Since I am on the West Coast (Bay area California) I was unable to attend last night, I would have loved to have been there. Best wishes to all for a happy weekend! – T.J.
Beyond interest, does it matter? Nice article but I don’t get the point.
Scientology has been so confuted as a subject and so altered in the last 40 years it’s unrecognisable as an auditor making and PC clearing endeavour, there’s nothing stable about it. I have doubts it could be evaluated corrected anyway as a subject, no matter what it is says in the books. Because what is written about it and how it is applied and understood by those in the churches are two completely different things, and management, geezers… what planet are they operating from? Beyond money, they don’t give a fuck about results.
Hubbard did state in 1970 the subjects of Dianetcis & Scientology were complete. How can something allegedly complete have so many ‘discoveries’ later on and marketing campaign after marketing campaign strutting the stuff of new breakthroughs time and time again.
I do appreciate Mike Rinder’s viewpoint that to stop the abuses within and the corrupting use of the brand name of Scientology as an religious organisation is the most important thing to do right now and concentrate on. The subject has never been allowed to breath, and I doubt it will ever be given the chance.
An interesting observation is also the amount of experts there are on scientology now. The websites and forums are chock a block full of people who know all about it, especially those that know nothing works in scientology anyway and it’s all a scam, every bit of it. Negativity and scientology are compatible bedfellows in the world of electronic media.
Another interesting thing is that occasionally questions on TV game shows are about scientology both as to its founder and OT terms. Now there’s a way make people experts, it’s on TV!
Haydn was braver than he thought. He actually tested another Hubbard statement, “People hate like hell to be denied Dianetics and Scientology”, by asking the pertinent question, “What people?” He came up with the answer that culties and Indies love to deny: “Hardly any people at all.” And when you get a good look at the type of people who do want Scientology, like last night’s “Go to freedommag.com” yo-yo, that depresses the count even further. Who wants to share a belief system with someone like that?
Scientology is no longer a niche religion. Niches are too cavernous for it.
Hey Espi! If it’s no longer a niche religion, is it now a ‘gutter religion?’
Well, I did say during the whole contretemps last week that I didn’t regard Scientology as a religion, so I guess it’s just a gutter, filled with garbage, waste, and shit, waiting for the one massive flood that will flush it away into the sewer reserved for it by history. Which is where it belongs.
I have nothing to offer after your post. You said it all, Espi!
You were lucky to have a niche! There were a hundred and sixty of us living in a small shoebox in the middle of the road.
Little did the Yorkshiremen know that licking the road clean with your tongues was one of LRH’s pilot programs for Super Power.
At bottom of lake…
Man, that really sucks, RM. I just can’t imagine how the dorms were. Yours was packed with only men. Many of which, I’ll bet, snored like rhinos. How many bathrooms did you have? And what about the prohibition on masturbation? I’m sure some of thy guys broke that rule.
Again, LSD saved from a fate worse than death……
Far out says it all!
Far out, indeed! It was a very interesting ‘trip’ I had.
Espi, do you believe that the majority opinion is ALWAYS the right opinion?
And another 2: do you believe that whatever interests a majority of people is always worthwhile, and what the majority of people are not interested in is always not worthwhile
No and no, Aqua. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That being said, the only opinion that matters to me is mine. Take Game of Thrones. I don’t like George R. R. Martin’s work outside of the Wild Cards collaborative series. The first book was dull. I didn’t continue on with the series, and I don’t watch the TV series. I believe that the people gushing over it proves that the public, having been force-fed garbage for so long, will throng to the mediocre and hail it.
The force-feeding garbage part, of course, applies to Scientology.
Well, you know, about the tech…
What I believe is… secondary to the whole truth, I guess. But I need to say…
That whether or not the tech works depends on what you believe, and no matter what method you apply to get through and navigate through life – you are going to get out of the experience pretty much what you put into it in terms of effort. I got a lot out of it. It really turned me around. I was a heartbroken, mother-rejected just-past-teenager who went from destitution to being enthusiastically hopeful about improving himself in a very short time-frame while working as a dedicated Scn-gist and living inside a closed-door Scn commune. But you believe what you want to believe, and I desperately wanted to believe. I would have cut off my left arm to make it work. And, I did. (Um, “make it work.”)
But, now the tech looks very different to me. It all looks very much tied to this hidden agenda, this penchant for controlling people and getting them to do things not in their best interest, and the operative word there is “all”. Tech may have its points of merit, but you have to let way too much slide, you have to ignore too many negative and some downright sinister stats, and today, – it is the actual death of another fine girl.
I will return to the Earth in ashes preaching about the dangers, and to hell with the therapeutic advantages to picking up the cans. I’d much rather give you the name of a good and honest therapist.
Thanks for this post, Mark Marco, I respect what you’ve written here, and believe your analysis is spot-on. I’ve always felt the same way, that there may be some small positives that can come out of it and work for some people, but that overall, the bad outweighs the good, and it can be very harmful. Glad you are out and doing well. – T.J.
Thanks man, Alanzo, cool. In fact, that was about the coolest thing you could have said. I was starting to get self conscious,(ha) I have to credit Mike, too, because I know the way I slam and roast the tech here goes against the grain of his considerations on the topic – he passes my stuff through anyway. And you know it is good for me. T.J. , you are right I’m doin’ alright after all, and I know I have to be thankful. Especially with another name to think about, this Cathriona? Aw, nuts. Just nuts. Look how sweet. I wish I could have gotten to her. Maybe I’ll reach the next one, but, man, man… that sure was one fine looking girl, gone before the best part of life began.
Hi Mark Marco, I think you are doing great! You write so well and your heart is hung out there for all to see.Mike is a very a astute moderator and extremely talented in reading people of all stripes.He may not always agree with me,but I trust him with my life.As I do you.Hugs and you know….Ann.
[ Enter Mark Marco in Dick Tracy cape ]
Just doin my job, miss.
Hi Mark Marco.Wait I dropped my decoder ring,because I was blinded by your Dick Tracy cape! Got tangled in it and fell laughing to the floor! No I will always be thankful for you.Ever and then some….Ann.
Mark Marco wrote:
“…I will return to the Earth in ashes preaching about the dangers, and to hell with the therapeutic advantages to picking up the cans….”
Another reason I come to Mike Rinder’s blog every day now is to read Mark Marcos’ writing.
Alanzo
Mike’s point about the three scientologists that showed up for the Q and A proved the point of the documentary. Lee Meekums was shouting to all in the theater to read Freedom Magazine to find out the truth about Mike Rinder. I have read Freedom Magazine and anything else I wanted and made up my own mind based on my own experiences, education and intellect. Because I did this and refused to go in and get sec checked to change my mind about my own conclusions, I was declared an evil person and my son was forced to disconnect from me.
Point proved.
McCarran, my heart breaks for you, and any parent forced to disconnect from their child. Every day I hope for your reconciliation, and that all families who are missing their loved ones will be able to reunite. Stay strong, please know that people are on your side and wishing all good things for you and others in this situation. – T.J.
Thank you TJ. I’ve learned to keep the faith but I’ve also learned when it comes to this church changing for the better, it takes whistleblowers and people continuing to speak out.
I big thank you to Sara, Mike and the many others who have and are doing this.
mmm, self determinism and what is really real to real to you. That will get you declared every day of the week in the Cof$. I hope you get your son back soon.
Your point about sec checks being used to change your mind, ugly use of technology & scary stuff!
Yes, the “tech” is applied in a very suppressive way.
Thank you for your well wishes.
Yawn, many of us left Co$ because we observed that Co$ does not run on Scientology’s stated principles. There’s a huge disparity between the subject and the actual running of things. I think its important to separate out the subject and then observe all consistencies and all disparities.
To illustrate, what did the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, or the Salem Witch Trials have to do with anything that Jesus, the Founder of Christianity, said? Did he advise any of these ways of spreading his teachings, or handling those who didn’t want to follow his teachings?
The most atrociously cruel acts have been perpetrated throughout history in the name of someone who was called the Prince of Peace!
I grew up a Christian. Except for isolated instances, I know no-one who follows it, nor do they follow the Ten Commandments. Some of the most righteous churchgoers I know believe fervently in capitol punishment. So much for “Thou shalt not kill”. I’m with Ghandi as far as Christianity is concerned. When asked what he thought of it, he replied, “It is a beautiful philosophy. I would like to see it applied”.
Look, as I see it, Scientology philosophy CAN be applied if EACH person self-determinedly applies it, but that’s a VERY tall order there, so to have a group, Co$ has to go downtone and FORCE and THREATEN people to do things, which immediately makes it NOT Scientology, because if its real Scientology it is not, it cannot be, forced. ONce you get people to do things that they don’t self-determinedly want to do, whether for themselves and/or a group – once the person himself is doing it out of fear – its not Scientology anymore.
All major organized religions to date have gone down this slippery slope. They COMPEL. They make people afraid so they’ll obey. They promise blessed salvation in the kingdom come… You’ll be in the bosom of Jesus for all eternity…. And Co$ has its own brand of bullshit and coercion.
I stick with studying and applying philosophies now because even more than when I was a kid, I totally distrust religions now.
I suppose my basic point after all this is that distinctions need to be made between “religion” and “philosophy”. The two can appear to be similar, they can CLAIM to be the same, but they are not. The two are wholly different. And, by the way, I’m not saying that all philosophy is pure! Fair game and disconnection are toxic philosophy. I cherrypick my philosophies also.
Hi Aquamarine,A very perceptive and informative post.Thank you.Ann.
“To illustrate, what did the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, or the Salem Witch Trials have to do with anything that Jesus, the Founder of Christianity, said?”
I’ll go even further. What did that stuff have to do with what Jesus DID? Nothing. Jesus did not commit violent felony actions.
On the other hand, looking at what LRH actually DID in life, the criminality you see in the church reflects LRH’s insane criminality in his life.
In other words, your comparison is fatally flawed.
” ONce you get people to do things that they don’t self-determinedly want to do, whether for themselves and/or a group – once the person himself is doing it out of fear – its not Scientology anymore.”
Really Aquamarine ? Do you really believe that ? Let’s enlighten you a little here, shall we ?
I will just use ONE, just one example (out of hundreds! of them) which is just probably 1% of one of LRH’s policies. It is contained in the “SP Acts list” PL. The line reads :
“Publicly departing Scientology”.
I’ll “say” it again :
“Publicly departing Scientology”.
That is considered by LRH (This is PURE UNADULTERATED LRH, not the clown DM) as a Suppressive Act.
Please, please realize that it doesn’t even says “Publicly criticizing Scientology” , or “Publicly attacking Scientology” , it clearly says “DEPARTING” as in saying one no longer want to be a Scientologist or to study Scientology. Now, you can read and W/C , can you ? Yes ? So please , enough with this gibberish.
Best regards
TC
definitions:
public: “done, perceived, or existing in open view.” (Google search)
public “accessible to or shared by all members of the community” (Merriam-Webster)
Is there any meaning to posting this ? I don’t follow.
TC
TC: “…it clearly says “DEPARTING” as in saying one no longer want to be a Scientologist or to study Scientology.”
No, it says “PUBLICLY departing Scientology.” Miscavige is the one who altered that to include even quietly doing so.
So here’s your own condescending advice back to you: “Now, you can read and W/C , can you ? Yes ? So please , enough with this gibberish.”
Now , here is my complete post :
“Really Aquamarine ? Do you really believe that ? Let’s enlighten you a little here, shall we ?
I will just use ONE, just one example (out of hundreds! of them) which is just probably 1% of one of LRH’s policies. It is contained in the “SP Acts list” PL. The line reads :
“Publicly departing Scientology”.
I’ll “say” it again :
“Publicly departing Scientology”.
That is considered by LRH (This is PURE UNADULTERATED LRH, not the clown DM) as a Suppressive Act.
Please, please realize that it doesn’t even says “Publicly criticizing Scientology” , or “Publicly attacking Scientology” , it clearly says “DEPARTING” as in saying one no longer want to be a Scientologist or to study Scientology. Now, you can read and W/C , can you ? Yes ? So please , enough with this gibberish.”
So it seems you didn’t even take the time to read my post properly , as it should have been pretty obvious to you that I had clearly said “Publicly Departing” to begin with. When I wrore , ” it clearly says “DEPARTING” as in saying one no longer want to be a Scientologist or to study Scientology”, I was obviously was referring to the VERB “departing” (no to the adverb “publicly”) to clarify that “departing” doesn’t mean ättacking”or “destroying” but merely “To go away; leave” (Farlex Online Dic). My point was that LRH was considering “SPs” anyone publicly (which even talking with a few friends about it classifies as “publicly”) leaving Scn , an obvious violation of their human rights and actually a suppressive act from LRH.
But in your obvious misemotion and desire to “be right” ., which is becoming rather routine with you , you missed the whole point. And I thought that it was me the one who had the problem with the language. Hilarious!
TC
Mike, I don’t understand why you deleted my comment. What’s wrong with giving definitions to clarify the issue?
Deleting the endless back and forth debate about what “publicly departing scientology” means is a service to the readers of this blog.
It’s not just your comment. Can you ever just decide to stop arguing pointlessly? And same with those who respond to you?
Reminds me of schoolyard nyah nyah
Self determinism?! Scientologist don’t need no stinkin’ self determinism! They get their determinism from the person above them! Self determinism is for sissies……
who the fuck is me anyway! Let’s get real…
Once again, I Yawnalot, your posts blow me away. You are one funny dude!
However, I will take a shot: We are ALL unconditioned consciousness. We are that which is aware of being aware. We are forever. Why we take bodies, I guess we’ll find out on the next level of life.
Freedom Magazine is like Mao’s Little Red Book which was required reading by EVERYONE.
Yea, pretty soon the tech, as LRH intended it, will be in Freedom Magazine – the only allowed reading for any scientologist.
>>> Then there was a LRH Publications Org Issue which stated: “It takes 25 book
>>> sales to make one Scientologist.”
>>> …..
>>>That’s four percent of those with enough interest in Scientology to reach for
>>> and buy a book.
So this is the final proof that “this planet” never will be “cleared” when only 4 % of those who even inwaste money in a Hubbard-book become a scientologist. How do they think that the rest will land in an auditing-chair ? With force ?
That is precisely why I brought the essay to Mike Rinder’s attention/
Haydn stated above, that no matter what the PR campaign, a minute amount of people who actually get into it, and of that the attrition rate, those that flee is *HUGE.*
Right now as I write some 12 Sea org members are working the streets of Hollywood and Sunset to lure people in, Body Routers. Such is the *unprecedented expansion* that Sea Org members must work the streets on foot, 8 hours a day to beg, cajole, please with people on the street to come into the cherch.
How many will sign the 4 unconscionable contracts ?
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/2014/06/28/how-scientology-inc-legally-cripples-its-own-members/
The utterly ridiculous statement of “clearing the planet” and other bogus fraudulent rah rah is analysed by the stats above. Even of those who make it in the door. 50% will be declared Suppressive Person within 10 years, others will flee and change their home tel no to avoid 23 phone calls a day and go into hiding after experiencing IAS regges. 🙂
“50% will be declared Suppressive Person within 10 years, others will flee ..” So true K De! I keep pointing out that the Church has made more SP’s than clears.
When the purpose was to “clear the planet”, they made clears.
When the purpose got changed to “put ethics in on the planet”, they started making SP’s.
I think there are more SP’s than Clears now. Even when they make clears, they go back and decide they didn’t really make them!
Laughter!!!!!!!!!!
And the more they mock up SP’s, the more suppression hits their lines! They don’t seem to notice they are mocking them all up!!!!!!!! Laughter!
Either by declaring them, giving that to people as their item, even considering them SP’s!
The Orgs wouldn’t have any suppression on their lines, if they could just see they are mocking them all up!
You have the Mormons out here and they are really thinking out of the box, with the book of Mormon. Tales of magic, reincarnation and Mormon Karma. Fastest growing religion on Earth with over 15 million followers with Mitt Romney and the King James Bible out on the front lines.
They presume everyone on Earth is already in favor with God, and part of their earlier life larger family. They mock up family!!! They mock up Mormons! They make Mormons and more children!!!! They assume in the spiritual world, everyone here on Earth is on the same side!
For people so involved with Scientology, that the people in charge of it or involved with it, can not see they are “mocking it all up”, with the case, drama, op terming, wars, attorneys, legal flaps, P.R. flaps. domestic terrorism, Golden Rods, declares, domestic abuse, etc etc etc, IS the most bizarre thing about the Scientology culture, to me.
The Oracle, I love it when you talk. You have such a refreshing viewpoint. Thx 🙂
…aggressively idiotic…exceedingly unable to learn from their own mistakes…
No wonder, that they are dangerous.
Thx 🙂
Hi Mike, Another sunrise and you and Christie and all your dear friends help me face whatever will come my way during the day or night.My heart will always be grateful for your incredible work every day.Forever,Ann.
Thanks for this Haydn. I have found what you have written to be true in my own experience in each Org. I ever attended. In Minneapolis many of the same people are still there as either staff or public who I first met in 1982. It is the same in Denver. New people come and go but it seems a small, dedicate few keep these Orgs going year after. Even on the Pac Base you saw many of the same faces year after year.
Scientology is not for everybody and that’s fine. If you want its products great but if not, it’s perfectly fine to spend your time on whatever triggers a real interest in you. I came into Scientology with a ruin and I needed its help but honestly, I admire these very lucky folks who know what they want to do from the age of two and create their lives around that and glide through life happy from beginning to end and have no need to get fixed.
KFrancis, you said you admire people who glide through life happily pursuing goals they laid out at the age of two 00000000000000000000000and have no need to get fixed. I’m going to assume you’re referring to me and I thank you for the admiration. But it wasn’t always so easy…
When I entered scientology I wanted to feel comfortable in my own skin. I came to the Atlanta Mission a vegetarian yoga practitioner and when I left scientology I was a chain-smoking alcoholic. So as to not commit the logical fallacy of false causation, I’ll say I fell in with a group of bad scientologists who never twisted my arm to drink and smoke. In the name of fairness I should add that I had “astounding” wins in auditing. My clay demos never brought clarity to Hubbard’s mumbo jumbo, but I did develop a skill for sculpting and later made a series of ashtrays which have been called, “interesting” by people whose opinions carry some weight. Anyway, I’m fine now. And thank you. 🙂
The 000000000000’s are courtesy of Puddy Tat walking across my keyboard.
Roger – go easy on yourself….pretty much everyone smoked in Scientology.
I did not smoke until I got into Scientology.
In fact, I noticed that the staff stunk…literally – the staff were stink pots…sweat, fear, hormones, vitamin B and Cigerette smoke / coffee. The cigarette breath was way too much for me. I recall a Course Sup (who had bad breath) showed me a reference on fragrance ( I love my fragrance – men and women)….I wore it all the time in spite of LRH’s policy on “smells”. I did ask the Course Sup “what does LRH say about bad breath”?
I was told that L Ron Hubbard said something about “people smoke because they originally lived around volcanoes (NO JOKE) and I it was covertly suggested that “to smoke is to go free”. I stopped smoking a few years after I left Scientology and took up Buddhism. I got in comm with my body with meditation and it was pretty easy to quit with some hypnotism You Tube videos on stopping smoking.
And – alcohol would be a tool to use to “key out” because in Scientology – as soon as you got “keyed out” – Scientology tech made sure something would key you in…always.
I know a few other Scientologist’s that took up alcohol and smoking whilst “going clear”….I think it is part of the Homo Sap that is reacting to the dangers of Scientology.
I became a heavy drinker when I left Scientology. I’m a firm believer in personal responsibility. However when I left I still believed in the tech, so I was in a pretty f’d up state of mind for about twelve years. Pretty depressing to even think about it now.
Pretty tough think you’ve got going on there.
Lighten up buddy, I can drink most under the table and then some. I don’t need no stinking philosophy as a reason to get drunk. Whatever reason you use to drink, don’t blame anyone else but you for lifting the glass.
I audited for years, the tech made a lot of satisfied PCs under my meter handling – it works to the degree the PC says it works and no more. You don’t anyone someone else to tell you that or otherwise – practice your own responsibility, not someone’s else’s.
Lighten up, the air’s thinner upstairs.
Hi Good People,I do not think you are alone in your post.Not at all.When I look back on the years 79-81 especially, I was still wound up in the chains of Ron’s World.Big time.There was a part of me that still clung to a belief that to have blown Sea Org,was an admission that I had been that horrible DB I was declared as.That was such a huge struggle I stuck my right wrist in a candle flame for a time that was pretty bad.Why? Because all I could feel at that time was nothing except shame.And talking to a shrink- deprogrammer only made the whole situation 100X worse.What started being me up to the sunlight? The fact that I am stubborn as all get out at times and my pure siprit knew I had been very wronged.It literally took years and years.As I walk through the golden leaves in my golden years,I still do not have all the answers,but I see myself now more clearly than I ever ever could as Clear and OT.Life now delights and amazes me I laugh cry I hurt I dream I fight cancers and it is all Good.Love,Ann.
Hey Ann. Some things in life are awfully hard to deal with. I guess I had misunderstood on an earlier post about the “deprogramming,” you mentioned. I’ve had a military psyche interview once and wow… talk about weird. I still feel the weirdness of what transpired. I never went back to that sort of thing, ever. I do believe prescription drugs for mental conditions is a disastrous field of experimentation for short term effects, long term ones are guaranteed terrible. I’ll take my chances with life. Regarding scientology, I got benefit from that I have no doubt. But it is a sharp instrument auditing. It needs to done correctly, not like what goes on in the church or by people who don’t know what the result is expected to be (the lies around OT are unconscionable). In many ways Hubbard was also shot for being a messenger. Life doesn’t take holidays but we can occasionally. Marrying the two is quite the trick and a good game if you get it right.
You’ve met friends here, albeit a little weird this forum stuff but friends none the less. Hang in there and cherish the laughter and good times you can garnish.
Hi I Yawnalot,Thank you for a most beautiful post.I will take your advice to heart Look forward to your postings.Love,Ann.
I’m missing something here. I don’t get what Mr. James’ point is. I know that sales is a numbers game and not everybody is going to be attracted to the bait dangled in scientology ads. Some people just don’t care about “existential” matters. When he says scientology is only “really real” to a small minority, what does he mean by “really real”? I’m sure “really real” means something to Mr. James but to me it’s an evasive term, or code.
I think I know what he meant by “really real”. He’s talking about a pre-packaged Weltanschauung made manifest, an entire world view in a pre-digested package that you can adopt as yours. It’s a willingness to incorporate yourself inside the Bubble and let someone else do the thinking and reacting for you. Of course, Haydn wouldn’t put it that way. He’d use less “defamatory” terms, but what I said is exactly what he’d mean: becoming the bubble baby in the bathwater.
Scientology is “real” to you the minute you use an LRH quote to prove a point. Then it becomes “really real” when you start moving up that bridge to total freedom. The longer you accept it as truth, the more “real” it becomes until, at least in theory, it will be “really, really, really, REALLY real” to you. As a man of science, Espiando, I know you appreciate me putting it quantitatively. 🙂
It seems to me you guys are overthinking this, possibly because you are trying to get an intellectual understanding of it.
I’m wondering if you’re joking because understanding is strictly intellectual. There is no such thing as non-intellectual understanding. There is of course, unquestioning acceptance…
Once one adopts a belief, new information coming in through the prism of that belief system is accepted or rejected according to whether it supports or goes against said persons’ established belief-system or pre-conceived ideas.
Be skeptical, question everything (especially the source) and be open minded, and your belief system whatever it may be, is guaranteed to improve.
ps
“over-thinking” is oxymoronic,
said to be one my most endearing personality traits.-mm
The first result of any dispassionate analysis about the tech would be, that none of the promised results of Clear and OT are actually achieved. If they indeed were achieved Scientology Orgs could not handle the masses beating down the doors. They would come not to become Scientologists, but have these super human abilities to go on and do what they really want to do in live. Who wants to become a cult addict, which could be one of the viable definitions of a Scientologist?
There is some residual benefit of the tech one could qualify as tools for a therapist and there are some intriguing possibilities to help people with those. This requires a person who wants to be a therapist and that indeed is not everybody. Monetary incentives or necessities aside we all have different interests and passions that make us select our profession. And only a small fraction of the population wants to be therapists.
From the narcissistic viewpoint of LRH everybody had to follow his path and when people did not bite than because it was not “real” to them.
The truth is most people smell a rat and stay away from lies as the original promise of Scientology tech is. And the secondary maybe usable therapeutic aspect is only appealing to a very small minority.
So the real story is LRH phantasies colliding with reality was always bend to lose on the large scale and never had a chance to achieve the pompous goals the great narcissist dreamed off.
100% Gerhard. However many ‘new public’ experience some degree of positive results from the basic entry level courses or actions – and that sets the ‘hook’. But from there, it is all a lie. The claims are very lofty, even space opera, but the reality is a very dismal existence of debt, exhausting hours, and a completely bogus state of being.
Mike, Remarkable restraint displayed last night. It would seem that that is NOT a behavior taught in scientology. You had to get that somewhere else.
Combining today’s post and the Q&A video, the half-life decline is a good model, as it asymptotically approaches zero and lines up well with Haydn’s math. In other words, “You can fool some of the people all of the time.”
I too liked Mike’s half-life model. Never quite looked at it that way. At first he said a 10 year half life and then Mike changed it to five. I guess with all that’s happening, the half life is shrinking.
My observation of the Q&A, it was anticlimatic. Mike did a very good job, just somehow I was just expecting more. And I was surprised that the audience was sparse.
The internet allows me to become friends with someone, though in reality they have no clue who I am. Mike, one of these days I want to introduce myself and shake your hand. Thanks for all you do.
Mike was great in the Q&A from Palm Harbor. I, too, thought the “half life” model brilliantly described the dwindling influence, but perpetual existence of the COS. As we are witnessing, with a few whales, a big war chest of cash and valuable real estate that can be flipped, Scientology can continue for decades with little new public and dwindling staff.
I also thought the compassion Mike expressed for faithful Scientologists, and his defense of dedicated believers with good intentions was necessary, as the public focuses on the “gullible cult members” instead of their abuse in a repressive, controlling system.
BTW, Haydn is a REALLY nice guy. If I gave him a million dollars to hold for me I know I could ask for it a year later and he’d still have it.
Hi John Locke,I liked your post,thank you.Always,Ann.
You’re welcome Ann
Can’t wait to watch the vid. Thanks for doing this public service Mike!
“Our conclusions even at that time were: 1. The vast majority of people don’t have a strong reality on Scientology.”
I would posit the opposite. The VAST majority realize (have reality) of what scientology is and thus, stay away. The TINY % of people who do NOT realize (have reality) of what it really is and thus are scammed come in.
If one were to study people and the % that enter into Cults in general, you’ll probably find a similar % pattern…
I agree 100% with you, Johnny Boy! With the advent of the internet, EVERYTHING changed. When you google scientology, it comes up all negative. People now know what this cult is all about and, of course, they don’t like it. So, yes, there is this TINY % of people who do NOT realize of what it really is. But, after going in to an Idle Morgue, I doubt they would ever return.
Thank you, Hayden. This handles something for me that it’s hard to describe. After years of being staff and S.O., the lack of progress was frustrating. This tells me that the experience didn’t HAVE to be as insane and frustrating for anyone as it was. I can see how this realization let you let go of unreal expectations and just deal with what you were really dealing with. Then you could do something valuable. I’m sure I’d have liked your org pretty well.
The desperation to MAKE the tech work on EVERYBODY made the whole thing really insane. There were rare pockets of time an space when sanity ruled in the dominion of sane people such as yourself and Lucy, but such were destined to be destroyed. Saw it happen over and over again.
Thanks again.
This really shows the cost you’re paying to keep doing this, Mike. A friend of mine I showed this to said “So what’s that about his wife?” I explained and he is now reading books and the web…totally changed his mind about COS. He thought it was a harmless goofy group and now sees it as a danerous cult. One more convert, but you had to be reminded of what they did to your family. I’m not a praying man, but I’m thinking of you. Thank you for your efforts. They do have results.
Hayden James wrote:
“…The people for whom Scientology is really real is a very small minority indeed.”
The author of the above article begins with the assumption that the claims that Hubbard made for Scientology are real, and that too few human beings are aware enough to get the results from it that Hubbard said they would.
The author is using Hubbard’s implanted reasoning that it’s not Scientology that is the reason Scientology doesn’t work, it’s dumb old homo sap.
Ironically, even within the Scientology mindset, this conclusion is called a “service facsimile”. It is making one’s self right and others wrong, and justifying for the failures of Scientology.
If the author could just step outside of the Scientology Mindset, he could see that his is an analysis which shows that people read the books, took the courses, and Scientology did not work for the overwhelming majority of those who tried it. Then they left.
End of story.
You can’t evaluate Scientology using Scientology to evaluate it. You have to step outside of all the Scientology assumptions and fixed ideas and logic, and see Scientology from different angles which do not exist within Scientology. Only then can you find the proper context for Scientology, and can see Scientology for what it really is.
I would ask Haydn to study hypnosis from sources other than L Ron Hubbard. To study Mao and Stalin and how they got people to adhere to their ideologies and how they controlled their populations. To read some of the basics from the subject of social psychology. And I would ask Haydn James to do all of this without using Scientology to think with while he does it.
Only then will he be able to accurately evaluate the subject of Scientology and why it failed.
Alanzo
This, Alanzo. This.
Easy tiger…
I’m totally willing to take Haydn’s observations at face value. Actually, much of what he is saying doesn’t even have to do with Scn; just a few decades of observation.
One thing that did ring true for me, no one had to twist my arm to join Scn. The closest Haydn comes to explaining this is that it was “real” to the person. Fair enough. I don’t know if there is a single factor as to why a person joins.
It’s quite possible that Scn is destined to remain a boutique religion, and that clearing the planet will forever be a pipe dream.
That’s what I took away from it too, it’s a great analysis. It’s what he observed from years of working and studying the situation. Sometimes really good information comes from many years of experience. I find it fascinating and insightful. Of course, I still believe that overall, despite the “wins” a few may have, Scientology isn’t “real” science or even a good therapy, and is in fact, harmful in many ways and should be avoided. I think his analysis is good though. – T.J.
SP –
I think that many people joined Scientology because in the late 60’s, 70’s and 80’s there was a deep dissatisfaction about the wisdom being offered mainstream culture in the West.
In the US, for many people, the events surrounding Martin Luther King, Nixon, Viet Nam, etc. were proving that our leaders were not anyone to be following and that they held no answers for us and our future lives.
There was a deep dissatisfaction for a lot of young people at that time.
Scientology was not the only cult to rise up at this time and to provide alternative lifestyles and answers to people, simplistic as they were.
A great documentary to watch about this, which reminds you of that earlier time and context – as a kind of “parallel study” – is on the Source Family Cult. This was a cult in LA in the late 60’s and 70’s, and shows the rise and fall of the group and its leader. It also contains interviews with people who had gotten out, and with people who are still true believers to this day, so many years later.
Again, I’m going to make my point: You can’t fully understand Scientology without going outside of it and looking back, using different ideas and events that are not Scientology to understand it.
Scientology is a squirrel cage of self-referential tautologies that get you no where if you try to use it to think with.
Here’s a link to a trailer for that doco:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=F6xeLuxXMRg
Alanzo
Al,
I generally agree with your assessment of the 60s and 70s. I would add that every decade or generation has its disenfranchised members. I would count myself amongst the ranks. I think Hubbard knew this and capitalized on it, not dissimilar to Hitler with post-WWI Germany.
My point on Haydn’s article was more that it contained personal observations and did not rely too heavily on Scn to “explain” how or why a person gets involved in Scn. Haydn’s observations and conclusions align with my own personal experience and observations. No real deeper truth there.
OK. I see what you are saying, SP.
It’s just when I see people using Scientology logic, alarm bells go off for me because I know how hopeless their conclusions are going to end up being.
I have yet to see anyone conclude anything original or groundbreaking from anything Hubbard dictated – once they use Scientology logic to analyze anything.
Scientology terms in their speech and in their writing are the big neon sign that the person is still trapped. Quoting Hubbard as a basis for their thinking, using Scientology tropes and pharaseology – even using idioms that Hubbard used in his writing – are warning flags that nothing unique to that individual and unique person, or anything original at all, is going to come of this thinking.
They can get out of it. I have personally seen dozens, if not hundreds, of people people stop using Scientology to do their thinking for them. It happens all the time, in fact.
It just requires an atmosphere slightly more challenging than an auditing session where every fanastical delusion is received and enthusiastically acknowledged by your auditor. It requires someone to point out something different than what you desperately want, or lazily accept, to be true.
I hope that Haydn understands that I mean him no disrespect at all.
I hope that he understands that I actually respect him very much, and risk being thought of by others as an impolite asshole to speak up and interject, and to challenge him to challenge his own thinking.
Alanzo
Plus, he’s missing a vowel in his name.
I’m suspicious of him.
Alanzo
No vowel????? SP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I naturally trust a guy who speaks from behind a shiney golden mask,
especially when it looks a cross between a monk and a gargoyle.
You can evaluate scientology with scientology .. scientology fails, because it uses two ideas at the same time .. it means in basic that once could scientology help everyone, and which is true .. it can help everyone if he asks for himself for help .. later on the line everybody was pushed for needed help .. which is quite different as a goal ..
LRH did pull in some wrong goals .. basically his own goals .. and so he lost the way of his formerly good work .. scientology was able to build a good community of people who wanted to help others .. and so is Hayden James basically right with his statement ..
I want to say, when I help a friend with an assist out of trouble .. and if it worked right he will not come back for another assist if well done .. maybe he comes back when he has again new trouble .. but as better I did my first task .. as lesser the possibility ..
As Hayden James said correctly .. it needs somebody who wants to learn more about all this stuff .. all suggestion in scientology stems from the meaning of stupid staff .. maybe wanted from LRH .. but not evident as a matter ..
It is clear that LRH did complicate his bridge .. so that no other result than confusion could result .. he himself has overseen this fact .. some say he wanted it .. but I do not believe that he was so clever .. I think his own mind did let him in a trap ..
There is a lecture on the SHSBC where he spoke of a SerFac handling on him, and he went on and on with justifications that he was right .. but he used justifications and gave no evidence at all .. he lost his way since ..
What I am saying here, is, Scientology was basically a good idea .. we were all part of it at some time in the past .. it was a good idea for us ..
Also you can use scientology against scientology .. and you will find very easy that LRH did try to solve an own SerFac with his OT Levels .. which is basically the same as all his PTS/SP handlings and declaration and whatever in this way ..
It is very obvious in this way that LRH did try to justify some crazy overts with his tech, so he wanted to be admired as a god or something like that .. he died finally with this because he could not correct it .. he knew about .. but did not tell us about .. which is his greatest failure .. ..
Alanzo, I agree with you. While Haydn appropriately starts off by saying he is “pro the tech” it quickly emerges that he is “pro the tech” because he believes there is something there to have reality on.
The analysis that only a small percent of a small percent will have “reality” on Scientology implies that there is some reality to be had, and could be read as elitism — Scientology is for those special and highly conscious people, as opposed to DBs, SPs, wogs, etc.
All of us who have been in the cult recognize that there can be some positive effects — at least things experienced as positive effects. But there is no evidence that Scientology outperforms a trained “psych” counselor or even having a completely trusted best friend who is a good, intuitive listener, or the euphoria and release people experience through religions in general.
For that special one in 25 who read a book and are hooked, I’d ask which book? Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health may predominate in the “first book” read by someone. Yet it is so provably false on many levels, and is so vacant of evidence of actual research, how can it possibly be an indicator of someone who has a “reality” on Scientology if they read DMSMH and decide to get in the church? This is like having a “reality” on something that is not real. They are already falling down the rabbit hole.
I personally am always willing to give Scientology a chance to objectively demonstrate its “reality” with hard evidence.
— Show the world one OT VIII as originally defined by Hubbard.
— Show the world one Clear as defined on earlier Grade Charts and/or as defined in DMSMH.
— Show scientific evidence that engrams exist.
— Show scientific evidence that evolution occurred as described in History of Man.
— Provide proof that a thriving civilization exists on Venus, complete with freight trains.
— Demonstrate through hard research that the Purif actually releases drugs and toxins held in fat tissues (or anywhere in the body).
— Show that the abreactive-type therapy of auditing, tracing down incidents through millennia, does not implant false memories, and does reveal true memories — show all the documentation of factual, past life memories that can be researched and documented (there must be millions of examples by now).
— Show how the universe can be trillions and quadrillions of years old when all scientific evidence to date points at 14 billion years or less.
— Give proof that the dating techniques sometimes used with the e-meter give provable, precise dates for events long past.
— Demonstrate the exteriorization with full perceptics of an OT.
— And so on.
If someone can give hard evidence for any of the preceding claims of Dianetics and Scientology, then — don’t you see — it would not be one of 25 who would have “reality” on Scientology, but rather it would be 24 of 25. You could not keep people away.
Haydn’s analysis is, however, consistent with some other facts. There are around 3,000 destructive cults in the US today with some 4 million followers (see http://www.workingpsychology.com/cult.html). And each of those followers will tell you that their cult is the right one, that it has the truth, and that their cult’s methods work and are the only way. Since these cults cannot all be true — they deeply contradict one another — it is logically possible that they are all wrong. Including Scientology.
The percentage of a percentage that Haydn discusses is probably not that far off from the “take rate” for destructive cults in general. If there are 4 million cult followers in the US today, and the US population is currently around 321,880,000, then the percentage in cults is about 1.2%. With Haydn’s calculation of 4 percent of 3 percent, he illustrates that Scientology is actually about 10 times less effective in its “take rate” than American cults in general.
Still, he is in the ballpark of what percentage of people will have “reality” on Hubbard, or The Church of Bible Understanding, or Heaven’s Gate (before it committed suicide), or People’s Temple (before it self-destructed), or Raëlism or Raelian Church, or the Branch Davidians, the Moonies, and on and on. For the members of these and other cults, each member had a “reality” on the teachings of their leader.
If we humans are to ever grow up out of belief in non-sensical pseudo-science and fascist, arrogant belief systems that demand totalitarian compliance, we had best start demanding extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.
Although I get where you’re coming from, I think all that is beside what ought to be the point. Which is, not what Hubbard claimed the tech could deliver, but what does the tech (auditing) deliver? Surely you don’t claim that it produces no results or change at all, when applied from one person to another?
I think that’s what ought to be studied.
As I said in my post, “All of us who have been in the cult recognize that there can be some positive effects — at least things experienced as positive effects.”
I agree that should be studied, along with comparative research of other systems that also work and deliver results, to get at the core question of “when a system does produce desired results, why and how does it do so?”
“If you have found reality in Dianetics you are already falling down the rabbit hole.”
+1
Basically, the essential point that many here are trying to make is that there is nothing “really real” to get about Scientology the philosophy, because the vast majority of people don’t get it, reject it, think its quackery, etc.
I’m calling that out as specious reasoning.
Now I’m not saying that EVERYTHING that the majority of people are against, are not interested in, have a low opinion of, etc. etc. is for the birds.
I’m not saying that.
What I AM saying is that to state that Scientology the philosophy is any of the above BECAUSE the majority of people don’t get it, don’t want it, etc., is a bad argument.
Here’s one notable example: Galileo kept insisting that the sun revolved around the earth. He just wouldn’t shut up about it. The vast majority of people totally rejected this and hated him, reviled him, ridiculed him.This was not “real” to the vast majority of people because any idiot could see that the sun moved, it rose in the east and set in the west, and Rome didn’t like it either and declared him a heretic and threw him in jail, and guess what, he was right, and this discovery, finally accepted after eons of operating on its opposite, led to many other discoveries that have shaped our modern world.
So please, if you’re going to bash Scientology and say its not workable, is nothing but claptrap, etc. etc. go ahead, but don’t use the argument that its all of this because for the majority of people its not real, ergo Scientology isn’t real.
The best point of Haydn’s argument is that his experience and observation indicates that only a small percent of a small percent will become Scientologists. That is consistent with cult-joining tendencies in general.
The worst part of Haydn’s analysis is the loaded loaded language of the people getting in having “a reality” on Scientology. It is cult language that can translated into regular English roughly as “see the reality of.”
You have erected a straw man fallacy to make it appear I was arguing that if the majority don’t recognize Scientology, then it fails. False argument, and not even in the ballpark of what I wrote.
Here’s the point: Scientology makes an array of claims. I listed a number that could be demonstrated if they were true. Give us the evidence.
By the way, your history of Galileo is inaccurate. Centuries before Galileo, the Greek Eratosthenes had calculated the circumference of the Earth to a fair degree of accuracy, and the Pythagoreans posited a form of heliocentrism. Galileo did indeed champion the hypothesis against opposition of his time — but where did the main opposition come from? It came from the Catholic Church and the Roman Inquisition, which eventually put Galileo under permanent house arrest.
So Galileo is a good example of how we humans must not continue to let churches and belief systems put claims to reality that they cannot back up with hard evidence.
What an excellent post Hayden. I was staff for five years in the 1980’s and observed the same thing. Our ED didn’t worry about the public who weren’t interested, she focused on the public that were and we had a strong and growing group. Most of us made it up the Bridge, but now are cast to the four winds by the devolution of the church.
I couldn’t attend the 7:00 showing of Going Clear but saw an earlier one. That was my first viewing of the documentary. Hard to confront; as Paul Haggis said, I am ashamed and dismayed that so much of my life, talents and fortune were wasted on this group.
I also just finished Jenna M. Hill’s book, Beyond Belief. The book caused a shift in my perspective. Before, I considered that scientology had a right to exist as long as they stopped abusing people. Now I think perhaps scientology’s human rights abuses have forfeited their right to exist as a group.
While I was at the movie a group of about 12 60-somethings came in and seemed to have a great time viewing the movie. Afterward they all gathered in the lobby to discuss the movie and I eavesdropped on their conversation. None of them were former scientologists, but had been Clearwater residents since the church arrived here. Their comments were cogent and articulate and reflected what I consider the prevailing attitude toward the church in the Clearwater community; anamosity. The film seemed to have opened their eyes to Miscavige’s role in the degeneration of the church into a totalitarians dictatorship.
I approached them and said I was a former sceintologist and they were so gracious and kind. They congratulated me for getting out and asked if I still had family in the church. I said most of them were out, but I still had a few I was trying to free. They were genuinely sympathetic and encouraged me to keep working on that, which of course I am/will.
I did a bit of recon in the parking lot, bathroom, lobby and theater prior to the start of the movie and after it was over since I was concerned the church may have had some spies doing their own recon. I din’t see anyone that caught my attention. And if you only had a few vocal agitators for the Q & A period, I am guessing there wasn’t a big OSA presence there.
I think the scientology public and maybe Flag staff too would be devastated if they fully comprehended how horrible their PR is, in the larger society of which they are a part. At this point, I think it is beyond repair.
Hi Been There,Thank you for your most illuminating post.Well written and I felt all that you conveyed about the Going Clear evening.Thank you so much,Love,Ann.
The 2001 census for the whole of England and Wales gave a figure of 1,781 Scientologists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_the_United_Kingdom
Just sayin’
Seriously? That many? And this is a 2001 census? I’d say we cut that number in half. That would be far closer to the truth. If not over stating it….
Lovely to have it quantified. Thank you, Haydn.
I, too, was and am a fan of the tech…1960s tech. Why? Simply that it worked for me at an extremely high level. WHERE Hubbard got it all, I’ve no actual idea. Frankly, I don’t care, never have. I took the information, applied the information, got results far beyond what I’d hoped. Then, when it became clear that Hubbard had clearly shifted to a MONEY, MONEY, MORE MONEY basis, I quietly left. And, as I’ve noted publicly more than a few times, the “wins” I got were MINE. They did not belong to the auditor, the books, the many CSes nor even to Hubbard.
I still make use of the tech. And it’s amazing to me that so few people – in or outside – understand what a simple communication cycle is and how to make it happen. Surely COB never has…and likely never will. For me, it was/is the basis of a good life.
For those who have been screwed over, thrown out, abused, defiled or whatever, I’m sorry that your journey has been so difficult. Only YOU, however, are responsible for it. No, I emphatically do NOT mean “you are to blame”. Blame is a total waste of time. By responsible, I mean you are the only one who can do anything about whatever “bad” has occurred. You may get help, but it is YOU who must apply that help and change your circumstances. I surely wish you well on that journey. And, like all of life, it IS a journey.
Thank you for applying your communication cycle on this planet in this infinitesimal point in all eternity, and so forth.
Hi Thegman77, I hear you and I so agree life is a journey and I am the only one responsible for walking my path within life,Yes I was abused,but yes,I could of blown earlier before the abuse really ramped up.That I did not do so was my bad decision.I must own it.Love Always,Ann.
Good points Thegman77. And Haydn, great article. Your figures and conclusions match similar ones I had come to through my own observation. One of the many take aways I got from your article was that haters shouldn’t try to convert the people to whom Scn as a philosophy (and NOT as a church), is very real and who have had good results with the tech. And that likewise, the adherents of the tech should not try to convert the haters. Square pegs don’t go into round holes etc. If the goal is to remove DM from the church or even to bring down a corrupt church, then both sides should work on that goal and not try to make each other wrong and convert the others to their way and “be right” all the time.
Making others wrong and yourself right… hmmm, seems I heard that auditing can handle that…
No shit? Are you sure, Cindy? Because if you are, I am soooooooooo there! I’ve been jonesing to pick up the cans in like, forever. This is will give a chance to see the 10 year old Whorehouse Ate meter! I hope you’re not just yanking my chain, Cindy…..
I’m yanking your chain, OSD. So much fun to do.
Cindy, I heard that claim also. However, after working for YEARS with people that received that level and beyond on the grade chart, I found that it was, one for one, not handled. Grade 0 being another example. I don’t think I encountered any exec in the S.O. that got the result from that level either.
Things that make the logically minded go hmmm…
What Cindy said. Everything that she just said.
I agree Aqua, that Haters should not try to convince not in’s that the Tech works.
Apparently if you last long enough in their system, like sec checks it makes miscavige right and everyone else wrong, including you if you stray from that path.
Hi IYawnalot,From my experience with sec-checks etc,your post makes perfect Sci sense.Sec-checking does in the end totally make the party being checked 100% wrong,it shook me to my core,it rips away your soul.Ann.
I am curious, dear Cindy ; what definition of “hater” did you have in mind when you used that word in your comments ? Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
TC
“And it’s amazing to me that so few people – in or outside – understand what a simple communication cycle is and how to make it happen.”
thegman77, The VAST majority of business professionals I’ve worked with over the years understand and use it well. And NOT a single one of them were scn’ers. You probably need to circulate with a more educated crowd…
John, I hear you. Whether one calls it, per LRH “A communication cycle” or not, if one understands what communication is and uses it well, as you’ve said, it works. HOW people learn what communication is doesn’t matter.
I like this write-up. It reminded me very much of my reality when I was at my most dedicated point. Most people didn’t want Scientology, even without a lot of negative press. The only thing I would ad is: Scientology was and is priced out of reach for many of those who did or do want it. And if the organization has truly good intentions I can’t reconcile that fact.
And here is to the profound hope that they keep raising the prices.
Well, they did back in the early 80s by 5% a month. Of course, back then, they had plenty of PCs. Now, it’s just old timers and people with brain damage…..
That’s the same with any scam, really. It only takes a few people to bit and its off and running.
To be more specific on religion. Mark Twain: “Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.”
Mark Twain! One of my all time favorite men of history!
“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” Hansje, truer words were never spoken! Thank you for this quote!
Crepuscule, this could be said about anything, scam or not.
Interesting to compare your observations with other religions. Catholics experience this twice a year, Christmas and Easter, when the people who attend mass every Sunday can’t get a seat because of the holiday Catholics. Many Baptists, Protestants, Methodists, Catholics and others “find” their religion again during times of personal crisis, only to fall away again. Look at church attendance during the immediate aftermath of 9/11: attendance surged as the nation came to grips with what happened. Every religion has the die-hard faithful and those that aren’t so devoted. The difference, it seems to me, is the inordinate amount of time and effort Scientology expends to reign in those that just aren’t that into it. They are never going to “clear the planet.” But if they acknowledge that, there is no need for the latest and greatest building renovations or the endless fundraising. Their leader will never allow reality to get in the way of his quest for more money.
Mike ,I would like to say thank you. You are my hero.
You’re my hero, Gary!