Our old friend Terra has come up with another of his thought-provoking essays.
You Can Be Right about Being Wrong or, L. Ron Hubbard and Scales
L. Ron Hubbard was into scales. All types of scales. If a condition existed in life, the man scaled it. From the Emotional Tone Scale to the Know to Sex Scale, he created scales, graphs, and charts to measure the relative importance, rank, and position of everything.
I prefer not using LRH’s own “technology” to describe what’s happening in Scientology today, but couldn’t help myself after reading one such scale from lecture 27 Aug 63, Rightness and Wrongness, transcribed in Scientology, 0-8, The Book of Basics:
The Ways to Be Right Scale
Really right
A method of survival
A method of dominating
A method of being right in order to make others wrong
What was right about it is now wrong about it,
but what was wrong about it is now right about it
I was struck how this scale applied to the Church of Scientology, its founder, and all its members.
Years ago, LRH and his excited followers felt “really right” about his “new” and electrifying Dianetic technology, and how it not only saved individuals but was destined to save the whole world. LRH had finally discovered the Holy Grail of mental therapy.
Those lucky enough to grasp his vision, felt “really right!”
Down the Rabbit Hole
The more LRH applied his tech to himself and others, the more he realized it didn’t work as promised in DMSMH. As others used his techniques on themselves, they, too, began to recognize it didn’t work—they weren’t feeling as “clear” as they’d hoped. But by then, all their friends were Scientologists; they had invested lots of time and money, and were locked into the system. All the while, hoping the next level of their Bridge was what would finally crack their case and handle their ruin. Doing Scientology had become a “method of survival.”
Cracking the Whip
After years of unworkable tech and dwindling enrollment, Scientology became a “method of dominating.” As more and more members drifted away, the church instituted harsh ethics as a means of stopping the exodus. Instead of taking responsibility for the crashing stats, LRH and the organization blamed the public individual, claiming they were mired in misunderstood words, overts and withholds, and connected to suppressive persons and the middle class.
As one century melded into the next, more and more people continued to leave Scientology. Those who were left spent more and more time in Ethics. More and more people got declared. More and more people were pushed to the brink of bankruptcy. More and more families were separated and destroyed.
LRH’s solution for those who didn’t approve of his tactics: Attack, attack, attack!
Fewer and fewer pieces of “raw meat” were walking through the front doors of orgs and missions. Those left holding the bag justified being right by making others wrong. Those on the outside weren’t so lucky. Those on the outside were to be pitied…and were wrong.
As LRH’s pathology to be right grew, so too did the “wrongness” of others. He blamed crumbling stats on psychiatry, governments, and failing educational systems. Life inside Scientology had deteriorated to “being right in order to make others wrong.”
From the Horse’s Mouth
In HCOPL 22 July 63, You Can Be Right, LRH wrote, “And the effort to be right is the last conscious striving of an individual on the way out. I-am-right-and-they-are-wrong is the lowest concept that can be formulated by an unaware case.” And, “There is an irrationality about ‘being right’ which not only throws out the validity of the legal test of sanity but also explains why some people do very wrong things and insist they are doing right.”
Declaring people suppressive persons has become Scientology’s ultimate contrivance in making “others wrong.”
To Present Time
Which drops Scientology down to present day and “what was right about it is now wrong about it, but what was wrong about it is now right about it.”
People participated in Scientology as a way to handle what was upsetting their lives. Scientology improved conditions—at least some conditions, some of the time. People did courses and got auditing because LRH’s technology and the organization seemed right.
As Hubbard created more and more Bridge to try to handle those lower levels that didn’t work, he came up with crazier and crazier concepts that made little sense. Time tracks increased from “this lifetime” to quadrillions of years. Those things holding us back expanded from present life engrams to thousands of disembodied entities circling our bodies. When the vaunted state of “clear” didn’t pan out, members were promised that if they simply stuck with the program, they would become cause over all matter, energy, space, and time.
LRH deteriorated from a charismatic leader having the ability to command rooms to living life as a crazy recluse. While preaching of the harmful effects of drugs, he became dependent on a cornucopia of pharmaceuticals. Ethics as a means of “help” had shifted from “light touch” to heavy handed, manipulative, and abusive.
What little was right about Scientology was now wrong.
Those things that were wrong about Scientology are now right. Separating families used to be wrong. Now, the practice is standard operating procedure and considered moral.
Lying used to be an “overt” and a sure way of not going free. Today, falseness, “acceptable truths,” and duplicity are acceptable—with church leader, David Miscavige, leading by example.
Fundraising used to be off-policy. Now, it’s Scientology’s chief method of generating income.
Finishing a course or level of auditing used to mean that students and PCs had earned the “ability gained” and were able to apply what they’d achieved for the rest of eternity. Now? Canceling certs and forcing members to redo courses and auditing actions are Scientology’s number two method of raising funds.
Going into an org used to be fun. Now it’s a chore, if not something to be avoided completely. Events were a chance to learn something new and catch up with friends. Today, they’re slick affairs designed solely for the purpose of extracting more money from fewer and fewer members.
Fancy, expensive buildings used to be considered extravagant and wasteful. Today, all orgs and missions must own one. Positioning churches in high foot traffic areas used to be standard policy. Today, Scientologists are afraid to show their faces, and have located many of these monstrosities far off the beaten path—many of them in industrial parks.
LRH said that the more serious an individual took the game of life, the more solid he became. About Scientology, he famously wrote, “This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance.”
Last Words
The Ways to Be Right scale isn’t the only scale in Scientology, 0-8, The Book of Basics, on which Scientology has scraped bottom. Across the boards, the decline is uncanny. The organization, along with its staff and public, has plummeted on virtually every one of LRH’s vaunted scales.
Again from You Can Be Right, “…the last defense is a belief in personal rightness regardless of charges and evidence alike, and that the effort to make another wrong results only in degradation.”
Whatever was ever right about the organization is now wrong.
Still not Declared,
Terra Cognita
My favorite essay of yours! Love it!
Thanx Terra for a great article today. Thoroughly enjoyed the analogy.
My name is Right and I can never be Wrong. My name is Wrong and I can never be Right.
Do we pick our names or are our names something given?
Off topic meow alert:
I just browsed The Bunker and saw a photo of Scientology Whale Trish Duggan with Dolt 45 at one of his fundraisers. Which is not surprising given her tax bracket.
What is surprising – and I’m paraphrasing Nola Girl’s comment – what is surprising is how a woman so incredibly rich could allow herself to be seen in a dress that looks like it was sewn from her grandmother’s bedroom curtains.
She looks awful. Puffy and bloated, pale and unhealthy, besides being badly dressed. Divorce does not seem to have agreed with her. You could call her a Beached Whale now, with her face all out of shape, probably due to a bad botox job. Standing next to Trump the two of them looked perfect together – human Pillsbury Dough People. And that phrase can be used definitively.
Yo Trish –
Enjoy your multi multi million dollar tax cut, dear, before the cult siphons it off. And with all that windfall money you won’t be paying in taxes, why not CSW your Ethics Officer for permission to trot over to your nearest department store and buy yourself a decent cocktail dress? Nothing expensive, and so what if its off the rack? Anything will look better than that flowered gunny sack you got photographed in with Trump.
Yo Trish Duggan Kids
Take pity on Mom. Money can’t buy taste. Try not to let her leave the house looking like hell. Its bad for Scientology’s image.
Aqua – this is what happens when you start (down) on the critical path – one finds any old nonsense to be able to sling mud. The handling for this is please do a Lifetime O/W write-up in lieu of Long Duration Sec Checking but don’t get Terra to do your End-Ruds – he’ll miss them as he has the same ones as you (well, maybe). Saying that Terra is again being very clever here and putting just a bit of truth in his article so some of what Terra writes this time I cannot disagree with, but then he is now frightened of me and hopes to trick me by doing so – haha! As if… So I won’t bother dissecting the article this time.
FP,
We commenters, both here & Bunker, are so fortunate that you’re deigning not to inflict your laborious Co$ “dissection” on Terra’s logical, factual, and informative article. Your persistent heralding of ElRon’s bogus “tech” brings this phrase to mind: “All defenses do what they would defend”
Truth needs no defense.
“Defense”? I am purely attack-minded. See Black Panther Mechanism! Not that the pathetic attempts to denigrate Hubbard’s tech can be compared to a black panther.
Ok, everyone, he’s baaaaaaack.
Hi Foolproof,
You’re right.
Singly or together, Trish Druggem and the Dough Boy are unworthy of mention of any sort, let alone MY sublime snark.
Pearls before swine, strictly.
Having said that, though, the truth is I just can’t seem to help it.
Whenever the opportunity arises I just can’t stop myself from taking a verbal pot shot at my President – this hardworking, intelligent, caring, much-maligned gentleman!
Oh, the shame of it all!
But then, sad, sorry, MU-ridden, ex-Scientologist that I am, SEETHING with overts and witholds as I am, I can’t help it, Foolproof!
As Vicomte de Valmont explained to Madame de Tourval in Dangerous Liasons, “IT IS BEYOND MY CONTROL”.
But HOPE has arrived. Something CAN be done about it! A Lifetime O//W Write Up, you say? Hmmm…sounds time consuming, but never mind, I’ll get write on that ha ha ha pun intended.
And, last but not least, thanks ever so, Foolproof. You’re a ministering, Scientological Angel
Sincerely,
Aqua
PS: Once its done, can I send it to you? Please say Yes. Honestly, who else could I trust to read my witholds?
Now you really are being silly, aren’t you Aqua! Never mind dear, you are posting so regularly here that the other silliness starts to rub off on you and you can’t help it.
Yes, very silly. But don’t blame the posters here. It is my silliness rubbing off on THEM. I am Source. That is the phenomena that you’ve been observing. However, in that you’re being so polite (for you) and tactful (everything is relative) I will endeavor to please by ceasing henceforth all silliness at least in Your Presence.This will entail great effort on my part. In return, kindly ensure that my Eternity Popcorn is buttered as well as salted. That is all, TTFN.
Stop rambling dear. Now it is moving into glee. You buttered your own Eternity Popcorn a while back and it got saltier as time went by. A few months back I suggested you go and get your case handled at a decent Indie group but maybe that chance has slipped you by now eh?
Well, ex-cuuuse me! Just goofing around a little. Relax, why don’t you? Don’t be such a tight-ass. Respectfully.
Ok.
Scientology is just one big make Ron.
🙂 @ Scribe.
Fantastic article, Terra. You’ve itemized and explained perfectly every reason I left CO$.
The greatest joy there is in life is donating. Splurge on it!
LOL!
TC, I was a scale junky, I relate on so many levels. The most famous scale is now reversed. 0.0 is where the organization lives. Hiding is a way of life for Mr. Miscavige as it was for Hubbard. And the SO is about controlling and owning body’s. I could on and on.
TC once more you Rock. ?
0.0 Body death
−0.01 Failure
−0.1 Pity
−0.2 Shame
−0.7 Accountable
−1.0 Blame
−1.3 Regret
−1.5 Controlling bodies
−2.2 Protecting bodies
−3.0 Owning bodies
−3.5 Approval from bodies
−4.0 Needing bodies
−5.0 Worshipping bodies
−6.0 Sacrifice
−8.0 Hiding
−10.0 Being objects
−20.0 Being nothing
−30.0 Can’t hide
−40.0 Total failure0.0 Body death
−0.01 Failure
−0.1 Pity
−0.2 Shame
−0.7 Accountable
−1.0 Blame
−1.3 Regret
−1.5 Controlling bodies
−2.2 Protecting bodies
−3.0 Owning bodies
−3.5 Approval from bodies
−4.0 Needing bodies
−5.0 Worshipping bodies
−6.0 Sacrifice
−8.0 Hiding
−10.0 Being objects
−20.0 Being nothing
−30.0 Can’t hide
−40.0 Total failure
Whether Hubbard was right or wrong with various scales, my guess is that a scale of human emotions and various scales concerning Human Emotion and Reaction would be a part of studying mainstream psychology. Emotions below body death would probably be excluded – Squirrel Psychology!
How much someone internalized various scales and uses them in their thinking and daily life would be a consideration. Someone below said Hubbard copied his scales from elsewhere.
The scales are simply (Hubbard) observing what is there. He didn’t “copy” anything. This, like the Lab Rats theme is yet another daft attempt to belittle Hubbard’s, alright, let’s say “observations” in this case rather than “works”. I’d also like to see these original scales then and compare them with Hubbard’s observations. I wonder which ones are more lucid and detailed – and useful? (You don’t need to answer that as we all know the answer.)
I wonder if a conversation with one of those computer voices like Alexa would yield some results about earlier scales. Maybe “it” isn’t that advanced yet. I looked at the terms and conditions for that thing and just like everything else on the internet it retains even spoken communication forever,
I know that Hubbard didn’t copy everything. Just like everybody else he learned from experience, looked things up and then added his own think (or spin) to it. This is a daily blog so I didn’t elaborate which, rightfully I would say, caught your attention. He rarely mentioned sources so who knows what he got from where. It’s my opinion that he signed his name to the bottom of everything he wrote for copyright protection which worked in the early days to stifle competition.
“Competition”? What competition is or was there? I don’t recall any other group producing “Tech Volumes” of data!
Ever been into a Christian Science reading room?
How many volumes of “tech” have been published on psychiatry? A thousand times mor3 than scientology? Does that mean psychiatry is 1000x more valid?
Hubbard himself said he was competition for psychiatry and that’s why they hated him. So, volume of tech isn’t a very convincing argument because they have a LOT more. You say that’s not tech. The rest of humanity says Hubbard isn’t tech.
Your argument boils down to ‘Hubbard is good. All else is bad. That’s my opinion and I am right.”
You have a perfect right to have that view. Just don’t try to support it with “facts” because it is a matter of faith. Just believing in Jesus or Joseph Smith. And there is nothing wrong with that as long as you don’t try to pretend it’s not simply belief but is something factual or scientific or provable.
Just stick to your belief. That is safe ground.
Perhaps the word I left off there was “workable”. So was it “faith” then when an auditor handled an ARCX with you and you felt better? Or was it “faith” when you saw people changing after lots of good auditing? I saw scores if not hundreds of people changing for the better, and so did you, but perhaps you might not like to admit such now as it doesn’t sit right with your new role.
You just cannot admit there is any faith involved because Hubbard said it’s a provable science.
Certainly there are some workable things in scientology. Millions of people change for the better by meditating or doing yoga. Seems there is something workable. Millions also get better with talk therapy. You would dismiss all those things as not really being workable, because ONLY scientology is workable. Another thing Hubbard asserted (without basis).
There is a whole world of information and “workable tech” and faith and everything in between.
But you assert to know that your way is the ONLY way that works, but not because it is proven. Because Hubbard told you so. That is the perfect definition of FAITH.
That’s the truth Mike Rinder!
Nonsense! I have had thousands of hours of auditing and done many many courses. Has nothing to do with “faith” or however you want to couch it.
FP, there’s no real “data”* in any of Scientology’s volumes (much of which was compiled, if not originated, by people other than Hubbard), and the development of a large and complex ideological and management system, with a certain history to it, by itself means nothing. They’re no more useful that all the Communist regimes’ volumes about how to “scientifically” manage collective industry and agriculture – 5 years plans and all that – which though adopted and implemented by hundreds of millions of people over a span of history longer than the existence of Scientology, are one of history’s great empirical failures, but are still defended by diehards with much the mindset (and excuses) as you.
And we should all know that quantity doesn’t equal quantity. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (later Osho), whose group had the infamous Anteloope, Oregon, compound, wrote and spoke more words than Hubbard. When his remaining followers are done with their project to transcribe all his lectures and talks, he will have more words published than Hubbard – so does that somehow make his “work” more comprehensive and authoritative in your eyes?
* Hubbard’s ideological re-definition and misuse of “data,” such as his claims of “240 cases” (completely undocumented) of this and “10X” that, aren’t ever backed up by proper tables of real data (counts, measurements, etc.), comparative results from trials of different methodologies, review by peers, professional groups or regulatory authorities, etc. I don’t think you’d fly an airplane on an airline that didn’t adhere to standards of research and testing based on rigorous data-gathering and analysis like that, so I don’t know why you’d entrust your mental health and spiritual well-being to far shoddier, if not actually speculative and (impressive-seeming but) baseless, methods. Modern research into perception and the mind shows that people are actually readily fooled even by what they think are their own experiences, and that the truth of matters can only be determined by rigorous objective means.
The key word here is “workable” as I clarified above. And definitely not pie in the sky stuff.
Perfectly said Peacemaker! ☺
. . . he signed his name to the bottom of everything he wrote for copyright protection which worked in the early days to stifle competition from “squirrel groups”. Like scientology or not, the law rightfully protects intellectual property. From what Mike has said the CoS no longer pursues lawsuits for copyright infringement.
FP, I remember reading the scales and thinking LRH was a genius. But that only worked if I didn’t question them too closely. Yes some seemed sensible.
The biggest point of disagreement I had with his scales was the emotional tone scale, saying if you are gay you are 1.1 (covertly hostile). It seemed like such a random thing to say. He also said there are no absolutes. So how could he say if you’re gay you’re 1.1? That’s pretty absolute if you ask me.
That was an early bit of cognitive dissonance. I was never able to reconcile that as I’ve always known gay people, even before I knew what being gay was.
They are people and as different one from another emotionally as any other ethnic or socio-economic group or whatever division of people you want to name.
But when I looked closer I didn’t find the scales as helpful across the board as my unconscious leaning on that knowledge warranted.
This particular scale is very interesting because it does indeed seem to mirror the downward spiral of the cherch.
When you say he didn’t copy anything, but just observed things, I wonder if you even read the comments here. Many examples of his blatant plagiarism have been shared here.
Numerous times.
The man plagiarized to a very high degree. If that’s what he calls observation, well, I’m not impressed.
This same man who built his ‘tech’ on the backs of those who came before didn’t acknowledge them. That’s why it is stealing. That lacks honor.
It is quite easy to say that Hubbard plagiarized things but then what are these things? We hear quite often on this site these words but are you really telling me that the enormous amount of data he wrote about the human mind and spirit are plagiarized? And often observations that others have made Hubbard elaborates on and gives far more and cogent detail on. Now these observations are not created – they are just observed. Hubbard didn’t invent engrams, they are just a fact of life, as are loss engrams, missed withholds, upsets etc. When and where Hubbard “plagiarized” something (and I would still like to know what exactly) these were presumably observations made by others which are already in existence. What Hubbard created were the hundreds of processes and supporting data to unravel it all. You are hurling mud when there is actually no substance to your remarks.
In these politically correct times I don’t want to get too far into the gay thing as most shy away from it for some reason but all I will say is that the confirmed homosexuals I knew in Scientology were indeed 1.1 on the tone scale. I knew 3 or 4 with hindsight. There may be and probably are others who are not that level on the tone scale. But I observed what I observed however unpalatable or politically incorrect such may be but, and, I am talking about their tone level – their being gay I don’t give a hoot about and neither did Hubbard if you read his later policy called “2D Rules” and they can do what they want. And I actually believe the Church or rather certain executives in the Church, were wrong to mis-handle those gay members of the Church and try to force them to change when they did do so. But this is why Hubbard wrote the 2D Rules HCO PL which these executives were then locally ignoring based on their own prejudices – or perhaps the fear of being accused as such themselves, or perhaps then their own inclinations? So you see when you have the fuller data things aren’t so clear-cut as you are making them out to be.
And to be quite frank I don’t think anyone is out to or seeking to impress you. You will either find Hubbard’s data useful or not.
You really are a despicable human being, despite your assertion of higher state of beingness.
I don’t remember the 2D rules policy. I have however seen LRH writings that are very derogatory to the gay lifestyle. A fantastic video was done showing that LRH ranked Pedophilia as a higher level of ‘out-ethics’ with being gay being worse on one of his many scales.
Does someone have the name of the scale or the link to the excellent video?
LRH frequently wrote conflicting policy like the cancellation of ‘disconnection’ which didn’t undue all the underlying policy detailing all the reasons one much disconnect.
I find your assertions of higher consciousness because of your adherence to LRH ‘tech’ to be so much talk. What Mike said.
Yes, I was waiting for someone to twist my words into what they want to hear and to make nothing into something. And so what have you misinterpreted this time, wittingly or unwittingly? And yet you also feel free to call me “a despicable human being”!
Yep, I dont like homophobes.
As to your assumption that I am “homophobic” – very clever. Your OSA training coming in useful now eh? There is nothing in my statement for you to assume such which you well know. An observation is not a phobia. As I stated above I don’t care what people do. I am not at all homophobic. In fact one of my best auditors was and probably still is gay and good luck to him. But as I spoil the little “parties” of “I think Hubbard said” or “I’m pretty sure there’s a film and writings but I can’t recall them” which some people here commenting like to throw about, with some facts, you will take anything to try and hose down and tar my statements so that the little Assumption & False Data Tea Parties can carry on assuming and slandering.
As to Clearly Not Clear’s remarks, yes, you can brush aside the 2D rules HCO PL as that doesn’t fit your pet theory here – and which “films”and “writings” are these then or are all these just your assumptions? Yes, I would also like to see this “fantastic” video, or at least it’s name – I am sure it must be quite “fantastic”. And the “writings” as well. As for “frequently wrote conflicting policies” which ones are these then? “I find your assumptions because of your anti-LRH bias to be so much talk”. Your remarks are all hot air with no substance.
And I don’t like people stating to other people that they are despicable in much the same way that a homophobic person might do, but you won’t get the paradox.
You’re not homophobic — but you just HAD to express your “observation” that you agree with Hubbard that most homosexuals you have encountered were 1.1.
Why?
“Had to”? I didn’t start the ball rolling on this. Clearly Not Clear did. And my observations are my observations – but there is no like or dislike implied or meant. In fact you wouldn’t believe how liberal I am.
I didnt say you were liberal or a nazi. I said you were compelled to express YOUR opinion that homosexuals fit the description of L. Ron Hubbard that they are 1.1. You need not have said anything. At the very least you could have kept your homophobic opinions to yourself.
You’re like the guy that says “I am not saying black people are inferior, but by my observation and experience they are low IQ fools. Just being honest. Dont take offense.”
It’s a common refrain of homophobes, racists and misogynists when they are called on their hateful stereotyping.
You can’t take back what you said. You COULD apologize. But that’s not what scientologists do. They assert their absolute rightness to the very end. I thought Hubbard claimed to have cured that affliction or didn’t you do Grade IV yet?
Here you go again – a) calling me a homophobe when I am not; b) saying I was “compelled” to comment when I was not – I was answering CNC’s ridiculous assumptions; c) swinging racism into the arena now; d) not forgetting misogyny being thrown into the pot. Anything else now to avoid and deflect the correction of CNC’s “fantastic” assumptions and other’s slanderous remarks? How about gender? (I see Nazi was cleverly thrown in also.)
But it is interesting that I notice you didn’t say anything when some other commenter accused Hubbard of being a pedophile and DM as gay? The double standards here are flagrant and selective.
Yeah the world is terribly unfair to you. You are mistreated, maligned and misunderstood at every turn.
Scientology can handle that. You just need to get yourself to Grade 2.
FP, the video on LRH’s homophobic ‘tech’ is here:
https://youtu.be/_-lkYwv-nHQ
This video discusses the acceptable sex acts on a scale:
https://youtu.be/gkMSqklwR0k
In case you were feeling like I was pulling that out of the air.
L Ron is not Nora Crest’s best friend, mankind’s best friend or mine.
Too bad he’s yours.
FP you referenced my being vague about the video about the ethics of sex act scale. Since we are after all on the subject of scales. Nora Crest speaks about where gay sex acts fall in relation to pedophilia in this video:
https://youtu.be/gkMSqklwR0k
She further shares other areas where LRH puts in written published form his despicable ‘tech’ by himself, printing his disdain and invalidation of gay people:
https://youtu.be/_-lkYwv-nHQ
Allow me to be specific in my comments as you do not.
You’ve advanced an interesting observation with this one Terra. You’ve applied a scale of Hubbard’s own explaining the Cof$’s present predicament remarkably well.
I delved into Scientology scales pretty deeply like a lot of others who studied the subject. For the most part they seemed uncannily accurate and aligned with much of the other “tech” you ran into on your trail of so called ‘discovery’.
There is a but, and I mean a big BUT with them. In that they became definitive as reference material. You no longer have to think, just apply, look up or otherwise consult the appropriate scale. They can also created a perpetual introversion of their own as they didn’t always make sense for every scenario but silly me always thought I had one of them dang MUs and off into la la land I went to find it. Which in-turn ended up in not warping the tech but actually my own mind to make it fit life. You article above explains such a thing by providing (it seems so right for you at the time to make something else wrong to get that square peg in the round hole) answers for what you observe or more accurately stated, if one has to live organizationally with Scientology as your doctrine. It’s a closed shop Scientology, you’re either with it or you ain’t. Those that sit on the fence with it – well… good luck, there’s an ethic’s officer waiting just for you to either sort you out or kick you out if they catch you being a dilettante. That recent article by RB on KRs comes to mind.
And that exposes a sneaky trap inherent in the subject – after a awhile you no longer look as yourself but as an automaton like a trained seal, self determinism went out the window and the game of Scientology became fitting life to it not the other way around which was first drummed into your head at an early stage by “what is true for you is true.” Scientology is not true – it is you making it true for you if you venture down their rabbit hole, the deeper you go the more true you HAVE to make it. I’m not saying there isn’t some interesting stuff in Scientology but what I am saying is it gradiently replaces your self determinism with Hubbard determinism. Auditing isn’t an easy task to perform well but when you eventually get good at it… what are you actually good at? I don’t see no stinking OTs running around the place improving life on Earth in this neck of the woods – do you see it in yours? Freedom medals… mmm… wtf are those?
Thanx for this comment. Very interesting observation and explanation. ☺
When I first started reading the scn blogs after watching “Going Clear” it took me about two months before I “cognited” on what people were talking about when they mentioned “Down the rabbit hole”. I must be a slow thinker.
Is there a scale for “Thinking ABOUT Scientology”?
Is there a scale, “thinking about Scientology?” mmm… go get good and drunk, then go ask a Scientologist how their family is doing – notice what happens next. That’s a start for your scale, or, the end of it – your call.
You put it beautifully in words. One thing that I noticed long ago (and did not like), was the scales and ranks issue. The “Bridge to Total Freedom” is structured as a scale. It is very similar to the belt system in Japanese martial arts. What I could never understand is how you can measure spirituality in status ranks. After all, spirituality has no rank. You work to achieve it, and you may improve in time, but no ranking is even possible.
Scientology, through the brilliance of Davis Misscumbag has designed a way to rank spirituality: $$$- you simply buy, opps I mean donate, your way there.
“A method of being right in order to make others wrong” Why don’t they just call it what it is, gaslighting.
I believe Werner Ehrhard used the concept in EST, Ehrhard Seminar Training. The basic idea as I understand it was to bust people loose from “their story”, what they use to justify their failures and/or feel superior to others. Elron had a lot of concern about others “stealing” his subject and going into competition.
If I recall correctly the “listing question” on Grade 4 was “What do you use to make yourself right and others wrong?” Maybe some people got the “right item” to their benefit or maybe it wasn’t that easy. I didn’t do that process. I think the three day EST seminar delved more deeply into the issue.
Self listing and self auditing was discouraged and prohibited in scn, probably for the better, We all do some introspecting, but trying to run most scn processes on oneself would likely result in confusion. Since I didn’t do that process, in the intervening years after scn when an occasional failure or misgiving occurred I sometimes wondered if I had missed something by not doing that process. That was a pain in the ass carryover from scn thinking. haha
Terra, why are you still not declared?
As I’ve replied before, only I can “declare” myself.
@ Terra,
Agreed, and furthermore I have declared THEM.
Seriously.
The organization that is the Church of Scientology is a suppressive organization in my book. A 2 1/2 percenter.
He’s probably flying under the radar because he has family/firiends still “in” and doesn’t want to risk disconnection.
3…2…1….. Where is FP? I’ve sth for him. Jesse Prince at 51:10 about the first version of OTVIII nocked up by DM and Mithoff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozeAPrrM29U
Haha! The April Fool’s joke of all time continues… Nothing “new” for me here. So it seems according to Prince that Mithoff composed this nonsense. Am I supposed to be contrite now?
Well, hello there! Contrite? But nooooooo…. .
I remember having read (on the ship) that part about Lucifer being the light bearer and Hubbard claiming that he would be Lucifer (but not in the OT8 course room/I’m not OT8). Have you been on the Fwds? Have you done OT8?
Btw, in your last reply to me you said sth about if I would think that sb took the OT8 references out of the secured OT8 course room and off the ship. Answer: No, I don’t think so. The rest you were talking about I didn’t quite understand and I don’t know about the reference you were referring to.
But what I observed is that after the MV one OT8 after another was coming back to the ship to do some sort of repair and that many of them were kind of BIs. When I asked an OT8 auditor from the OT8 tech delivery team about why they would come back, I got told that they would “have missed something”. After Jesse’s statements it makes sense to me. Also the first OT8 C/S got busted after the MV and I was always wondering why. I guess she was DM’s scapegoat after the “disaster” he and Mithoff had fabricated.
Yes, this is interesting. No one has explained how that document got off the ship (and nor will they of course). It’s very “detailed” and runs to several pages with the “processes”. So if it didn’t get off the ship which is very unlikely is it not, then did an OT8 compose it word for word from memory? It is even couched in an “HCOB” format with date and I see “LRH” was the typist as well! Quite an eidetic memory feat even with OTVIII powers, that eh? Or are we supposed to believe Inquisitor George’s story that it was slipped under his cabin door at midnight for running in the morning and he or someone “kept” a copy of the most confidential document in Scientology history (if true), then smuggled it off the ship down the gangplank and passed his leaving sec check with it snugly tucked in his briefcase? And did you get a copy to “take home with you”? I don’t think you did, did you?
The other reference is the actual OTVIII HCOB of 1969. That one is written by Hubbard. Dosen’t mention anything of spontaneously combusting (refrain from laughing here) or the other nonsense themes.
Replying here to your last reply to me (below doesn’t work).
I wasn’t addressing you – …?
That wasn’t clear to me as it was under my post/reply.
… seems AO security…
About what I wrote: “I remember having read (on the ship) that part about Lucifer being the light-bearer and Hubbard claiming that he would be Lucifer.”
Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly. I didn’t assert that I’ve read THE OT8 reference in question (or about combustion…), just that I read about the Lucifer stuff. Don’t remember what reference from LRH it was. What I find interesting is that Jesse Prince who was there is confirming that the Lucifer stuff was in the first version of OT8. And I like how Jesse is telling about what he experienced and from his perspective.
I’m just curious if you’ve been on the ship and done OT8, also because of reality when I explain sth. It’s like if you ask sb if he has been in a certain city when you talk about it. I guess then that you weren’t there. I was there from the beginning, and it’s not a secret.
That’s it for me for this thread, don’t want to bother Mike any further with this back and forward. He must be quite tired of it. Cheers then!
——————————————————————
(Sorry, Mike and thanks for your patience).
As I recall there was no “reply” link on the bit that I wanted to reply on. No, this OTVIII thing is dragging on into cloud cuckoo land. I will try and refrain (until April Fool’s Day at least) from replying seeking to disabuse on this now as, like the document, it is all getting a bit silly and I don’t want to be responsible for anyone er, spontaneously combusting! To the Devil with it eh? Jeez!
What I also don’t get is how come you read about the Lucifer nonsense “on the ship but not in the OT8 course room”? Was it posted on the Staff Notice Board?
I suggest you read Jesse Princes book
What I suggest is that you or someone answer my question above. Would solve/explain all this nonsense.
Posted on the staff notice board? Now you are silly (or are you just trying to belittle me maybe?) And why do you ask/demand that “someone” answers the question when your question was addressed to me and I’ve told you that I read it. That doesn’t make sense.
Answer: I remember that I read it in the crew course room.
Question: Have you been on the Fwds? Have you done OT8?
I wasn’t addressing you – my question was the above one of how did this wonderfully detailed document get off the ship?
As for reading it in the crew course room, seems AO security is a bit lax then eh? Or can a swamper or cabin cleaner read it over your shoulder?
Why do you need to know if I have been on Freewinds or done OT8?
Perhaps one of the disgruntled people it wa presented to took a photo of it? Perhaps someone stole it like the NOTs materials were stolen? Perhaps a disgruntled SO member wrote it out long hand sitting in the course room. Do you think nobody has ever left the ship? Or that nobody has ever gotten access to confidential scientology materials? You keep bringing this up as your proof that this document is fake. I have finally answered you with how it could have been taken because I am sick of this illogic of “this cannot be true because you haven’t explained how it could exist”. This is the “you can’t prove to me that man landed on the moon and it wasn’t done in a movie studio so therefore it’s not real” school of illogic. Because nobody can prove to you how it was gotten is enough for you to certain it doesn’t exist.
Well for a start security was ramped up after the Copenhagen thing. Double locking doors, cell phones with cameras not allowed, HCOBs logged in and out of clip files with alarms blaring if not returned etc. etc. etc. and on top of all that smuggled out in a briefcase presumably down a gangplank from a ship as well? Plus extensive security checking of all staff and students, far more than in the early 80s. An OTVIII student writing it all down long hand in the course room whilst the supervisor and other staff smoke and drink coffee and don’t ask him what he/she is doing? Would take an hour or so at least. Yes all very chagrined of you and seemingly plausible at first superficial glance until again one examines closely the possibilities you mention above. You have not finally answered me at all.
But the proof is the document itself – if anyone could believe such garbage they need their heads testing. It’s a fake. Whether DM/Mithoff created it or not is another matter. But that document and its daft ideas had nothing to do with Hubbard.
If the slow start and length of Ron’s interview is daunting, just watch from 51:10 to about 56:52. Five minutes. You will not be disappointed, because Jesse really goes deep, and wastes no time getting his points across, plus as best I recall much of what he relates in that short time is not in the book, so it is a real treat.
Perfect Terra. His scales were never for him. We worked for free because it was our duty while he ammased money in $millions. That was the Scale of motivation: duty at top, money at bottom.
Also, lrh did not allow dividuals to become more “themselves” through self discovery. The precept of “know thyself” was only for lrh. In Scientology absolutely zero effort is spent to know thyself as separate and different than any other individual, including lrh. “Know lrh” was the new mantra. Follow him and not yourself is the ultimate trap. The End Phenomena of Scientology is total loss of self.
Being a narcissist LRH made wrong the psychs and the government in the early 50s when they did not recognize his technology as claimed by him – to handle any illness, mental or otherwise. He was right to begin with.
I think he believed in his scientology tech, even with the drugs and illnesses he was suffering at the end, he still claimed the cause was the effect of the entities handled in OT VII…but again, blaming it on something else.
From the beginning to the end his lack of responsibility was paramount; either was the fault of the government, or the OT case, or whatever if something did not go as he wished. He was never wrong, you see.
Cruelty and heavy ethics augmented when the sociopath miscabage took over…
I’ve read plenty about Hubbard’s heavy ethics pre-Miscavige, so I don’t think there was a dividing line there. Hubbard put a five-year-old in the chain locker; he had people thrown overboard (look at a photo of the Apollo – it was a long way from the deck to the water.) Hubbard banished people for the slightest mistake; he developed Fair Game, and created the entire family-breaking Scientology Disconnection.
Don’t forget it was Hubbard who wrote up what he called Ethics, which is unlike any normal ‘ethics’ definition anywhere. No apologies for Miscavige, but none for Hubbard, either; neither were out for anyone except themselves.
Wow, excellent analysis. It’s actually quite funny!
Way to roast Scientology in Hubbard’s original sauce!
Excellent essay Terra! When I started in 1972, the idea was that Hubbard had developed something useful and that faith in his research would yield results. In the end, Hubbard failed. Looking back, Scientology was nothing more than a “venture capital” experiment in the realm of religion. We thought that if we threw enough money at Scientology, it would discover immortality. Hubbard copied a lot from the 1875 writings of Blavatsky and others. Hubbard copied the entire viewpoint from Theosophy and just changed a few things to make Scientology stand on the very dark side. All of the scales were just copied from Rudolph Steiner and a few other Theosophists. The grandest most distorted scales are in his Philadelphia Doctorate Tapes. Hubbard drew them like a child. One MRI of the brain blows every one of them out of the water. Blavatsky called Hubbard’s state as “The Grand Illusion”. This is the state of a person locked in their religious sense of rightness when they are dead wrong. Handling Xenu on OT III was easy for me because the story is 6th grade Catholic religion. It was no big deal. Hubbard was modernizing hell. When I got onto OT VIII on the Freewinds in 1988, Hubbard reached the end of his ability to hypnotize me. He knew nothing of Buddhism whatsoever and tried to say that he was the Buddha. This was totally stupid. I spend over a year in Korea and in Thailand learning from Monks. Hubbard had a totally distorted westernized concept of Buddhism He was ignorant of even the simple definitions. He was a joke. Reading his 1950’s viewpoint today ends in total mirth. Scientology turned out to be “American Junk” and “American Trash” rolled into one big lie.
Totally agree George….as you said earlier, Scientology is a waste of time …. Certainly for anyone searching for spiritual enlightenment, it is a waste of time.
Here is Inquisitor George proffering his learned truths or rather hoping that readers nod their heads sagely and without looking into what is actually being said. So, I have recently been reading a book entitled “The Basics of Buddhism” i.e. “simple definitions” which has it seems only one “process” for achieving enlightenment – chanting one phrase continuously. And then pushing its devotees towards merging with the universal “whole” as in Nirvana. I have nothing against Buddhists who are gentle souls I suppose, only against Christian (?) squirrel dudes who try and compare it to Scientology presenting it as a flowery fait accompli when there is literally no substance and no route out for anyone. You are definitely on the right path here George. Happy merging into the Borg whole. “Nam-myoho-renge-kyo”! (rinse and repeat 50,000 times).
Welcome to your first lesson on Buddhism! Scientology and Buddhism share only one characteristic in common and you have hit upon it. Both religions split into many forms. You are quoting only one form of Buddhism which I do not accept as valid. Scientology split into the Miscavige form, the Hubbard form and the Independent form. In the Miscavige form, you donate money. In the Hubbard form, you invent useless processes which lead everywhere. You and Hubbard could not find Nirvana with an e-meter because there obviously is no charge. Get it?
Would like to invite you to an OT confrontation in front of the Super Power Building. I have two old e-meters I could donate.
Dear April Fool,
I’m “old” OT7 George so your fake OTVIII will wilt and wither from my laser beams and you will achieve what you finally desire – spontaneous combustion – you won’t need the April Fool’s version.
Ha Ha Ha – I did all of the OT VII versions including the “old” one in about 197?.
Haha – well, I’d better not mess with you then! Call it a truce on that one?
Well, yes I’ll call a truce. Yesterday we received a Flag Magazine in the mail. This is odd because we were both declared suppressive years ago.
Well, there’s always hope eh?
Oh! This sounds good George. But is there some substance to your deflecting comment? Not so far – it’s all hot air. So what then are the mysteries and processes of Buddhism that will release man from his travails? Let’s hear them then. I am getting the popcorn ready and putting my feet up now. In fact the popcorn is already jumping and a-popping if not spontaneously combusting in sheer anticipation!
Foolproof, I hope you’ll be ok with answering the following question. I did promise to question you never, but perhaps you may see your way clear to answering this little one as its not about LRH’s tech yet nonetheless has me bursting with curiosity to know:
Do you butter your popcorn?
Aqua – this is what happens to people by continuing to post nonsense – it gets even sillier. Recant now and your popcorn will be salted from here to eternity!
Foolproof,
You sound just like Hubbard mocking Buddhism and the “croaking frogs” that he observed on his visit to Guam.
I spent over twelve years as the “point man” in a Buddhist Monastery. I had the job of greeting the English speaking public. To train for the job, I had to read the Pali Sutta of the Buddha relevant to the topic. It was only about four words long. It basically said “Don’t waste your time or let them come and see only”. It took me twelve years to understand it fully. It is a total waste of time to outline the steps or “processes ” of Buddhism. We have a first step called “Right View”. Sorry but you do not have it so my efforts would be futile.
Foolproof, once again do you prove yourself right. Its amazing how RIGHT you always are!
In fact, lately, each time I read a post of yours I’ve been experiencing the irresistible urge to conjugate the verb “to be” with the modifier “right” in every voice, tense and mode. Now, so far I’ve been able to subdue these impulses but if you keep being so darned right all the time don’t blame me if one day I actually do it.
I am not mocking anything. Amazing that mocking Scientology is ok for you to do but then you accuse me of doing such, which I did not. Do your Buddhist friends know that you are mocking Scientology?
As to answering my question, the absence of any answer answers it.
Still waiting…
I do not know what you are waiting for. Perhaps the release of OT IX?
No, just the answer to my question above. Deflecting again eh?
Ha! – Here’s a chance to again mention my favorite book about Buddhism, “Buddhism – A Way of Life and Thought” by Nancy Wilson Ross. It has an index and a glossary of about 150 terms, is easy reading, and is available in paperback reprint for ten dollars. She mentions “The many branched tree of Buddhism” but limits the discussion to three main divisions, Theravada or Hinayana Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Zen Buddhism. I would prefer Zen since it acknowledges the possibility of “instant enlightenment”. Millions or billions of people have experienced moments of kensho over time and some carried on with the quest but that’s too much of a discussion for a daily blog.
Here’s an anecdote from the book:
[Zen relishes laughter at its own expense, enjoying in particular, anecdotes which expose sententiousness or pomposity.
……………………….
A monk came to the Master Ma Tsu for help in solving the koan he had been given: “What is the meaning of Bodhidharma’s coming to China?” The Master suggested that before proceeding with the problem the monk should make him a low bow. As he was dutifully prostrating himself, Ma Tsu, the great Master, applied his foot to the monk’s posterior. The unexpected kick resolved the murky irresolution in which the monk had been floundering for some time. When he felt the impact of his teacher’s foot, he is said to have “attained instant enlightenment.” Subsequently he said to everyone he met, “Since I received that kick from Ma Tsu I haven’t been able to stop laughing.”]
From the glossary of the book – kensho: Seeing into one’s own nature, or the first experience of satori, “awakening.”
Yes very good Richard, somewhat entertaining. But George still hasn’t answered my question unless you have done it for him by stating that a kick in the butt is the way to achieve Nirvana or whatever? Or rather George has answered my question of course – by not answering it, as he seemingly can’t.
I completely agree with this George.
Don’t agree with George too much though Ann – you might spontaneously combust!
This could be an intro to a theology class on Scientology. Well said. I can add that another issue in Scientology is the false belief that only an individual can learn something oneself. Learning is done as a solo activity in essence. No group effort, no back and fourth communication. I am a firm believer in knowledge transfer, from a senior to a junior. An apprentice. Scientology has individual scholars who often end up in endless cycles of not knowing what to do or not understanding still after looking a word up in a dictionary fifty million times. Pfft. Riiight.
What was right was self-motivated people who probably enthusiastically learned and applied the material with what they had, now what is wrong is a new unmotivated and confused generation trying to figure out how to graph grandpa’s paper graphs on their iPad or unable to find Scientology 0-8 on Audible.
Terra, excellent article, concise and easy to understand.
Mike, maybe consider adding this to your list of recommended reading.
I’m reminded of a video I recently found by an ex-scio (whose name escapes me). Anyway, it gave lots of examples where “scientology says one thing and does the opposite.” I wish I’d bookmarked it.
Good article Terra.
One of the many pieces of cognitive dissonance I tried reconciling was the PDC lecture wherein Hubbard says you can’t be serious and win in this universe and then does a complete about face in KSW calling Scientology a deadly serious activity.
The main scale used today in the cult:
DAVE IS RIGHT
I AM WRONG
The present time Scn computation:
DAVE IS RIGHT
I AM A WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT WHO IS UNWORTHY AND WRONG
The whole Scn time track computation:
RON = DAVE = RIGHT
SELF = NONEXISTENCE = WRONG
Yes Goden Era Parachute, you got that right.
GEP – Right! Go to the front of the class!
Hubbard’s inherent lack of imagination is shown by his idiotic ‘Scales’ only having one axis. If he’d had even a scintilla of appreciation for the complexities of human nature, he’d have used two or even three axes — but then again, he was such a one-dimensional thinker, wasn’t he?
He really was! ?
OT
I wonder how Rick and Roxy are doing… 😉