What's new

Do $cientologists still think there are millions of them?

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
While I can't speak to him working as a paid expert, I did read his book on Scientology and found it to be pretty much total crap. He was _way_ too soft on them by completely avoiding analyzing controversial topics. Dr. Urban's book on Scientology was, in my opinion, 1000x better than Melton's. It's still academic in tone but he takes a critical look at the controversies that have been part of Scientology's history.

If I was buying something on eBay from a particular seller, I would not rely on academics or theorists. I would read the reviews of prior customers.

How do you like the reviews so far on ESMB? LOL
 

Gib

Crusader
While I can't speak to him working as a paid expert, I did read his book on Scientology and found it to be pretty much total crap. He was _way_ too soft on them by completely avoiding analyzing controversial topics. Dr. Urban's book on Scientology was, in my opinion, 1000x better than Melton's. It's still academic in tone but he takes a critical look at the controversies that have been part of Scientology's history.

This post I made on another tread was intended for you, and you can take it for what's it worth or not, but it is from somebody who was in, as opposed to the so called "religious experts" who were never in. But, you have to read all the comments as I linked to Marty's place.

You always have to ask yourself - do you believe those who were in, or people who were never in and trying to explain those who were in?

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...aving-the-cult&p=905391&viewfull=1#post905391
 

Gib

Crusader
If I was buying something on eBay from a particular seller, I would not rely on academics or theorists. I would read the reviews of prior customers.

How do you like the reviews so far on ESMB? LOL

scientology solved that problem------

sue the Bad Review guys. :hysterical:
 

kate8024

-deleted-
If I was buying something on eBay from a particular seller, I would not rely on academics or theorists. I would read the reviews of prior customers.

How do you like the reviews so far on ESMB? LOL

I think it depends on how major the purchase is - sometimes you want a 3rd party to provide a more objective viewpoint, especially when they can provide broader context. To illustrate: A regular reviewer of, say, a car will know their current car and the previous cars they have driven and they will often have emotional attachments to the different cars they have owned and their current one - but Consumer Reports has a broad overview of every car available. The owner will be able to tell you things like how the vinyl on the dashboards starts to separate after five years but Consumer Reports will be able to say "car a has better brakes than these other 200 models and car b has better roll over protection than these other models" and so on. They provide different types of information, neither inherently better than the other but certainly not all owner reviews are of equal quality and not all reports from 3rd parties are of equal quality.

Hence books like Wright's and Urban's being so important as they provide looks at Scientology that are unique to a broad outside perspective.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
This post I made on another tread was intended for you, and you can take it for what's it worth or not, but it is from somebody who was in, as opposed to the so called "religious experts" who were never in. But, you have to read all the comments as I linked to Marty's place.

You always have to ask yourself - do you believe those who were in, or people who were never in and trying to explain those who were in?

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...aving-the-cult&p=905391&viewfull=1#post905391

Thanks for that post, I agree with much of what you have written there. I've never bought into the idea of Clear or OT personally (not the magic powers stuff anyway), but I had the advantage of resources like ESMB as I was reading Dianetics. I do agree that "Scientology" isn't a "real" thing, but then I don't believe any religion to be a "real" thing. They are all hodgepodges of ideas, writings, practices, etc. that draw on earlier sources and rebrand them, I don't think Scientology is any different here.

Viewing Scientology as "the study of what Ron knew, discovered, plagerized or imagined" is, in my opinion, a pretty fair characterization, regardless of if you relabel it as Hubbardology. I don't think that inherently means there is nothing of interest anywhere in there - but I would certainly encourage anyone who, for whatever reason, studies Scientology in any way to keep this in mind.

Scientology Ethics and by extension the blind devotion to stats are, I believe, the root of all evil within the Church of Scientology at this point in time.
 

Anonycat

Crusader
This is something I am curious about and would like the opinions of those who know a whole lot more than I do about this.

Could current $cientologists possibly still believe there are 8 million or 9 million or 10 million members of the organization? Did anybody ever actually believe these numbers? Even when times were good?

How was lack of every org being "St. Hill sized" explained? And when striving and striving for this, how was the lack of any increase is size explained?

What about now? What can current members possibly be thinking or telling themselves in order to justify the lack of people streaming into their orgs?

I can understand people having their "dreams" and "thinking positively" and all that - but when the evidence is directly in front of your nose, how can that be denied? Does each org think they are the only one stagnating and every other org, worldwide, is blossoming?

Yes, I think they do.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
You're being jerked around and poked like a two headed turtle in a terrarium. These "scholars" are not interested in your opinions, but only in observing you, as an anthropologist would observe a primitive tribe in the rain forest.

As usual you are reverting to wrong indications and put downs.

I was asked to talk, by scholars, and a Professor Emeritus of the London
School of economics asked for a copy of my talk and wishes to meet for
further private commentary.

J. Gordon Melton, who's worked as a paid "religious expert" for a variety of destructive cults, including Scientology Inc., probably has read, or is at least aware of, the Brennan statement on religious cloaking. He knows the subject better than you do, as I doubt that you've actually read it. Melton, knowingly and willingly, was a participant in the contemptuous fraud of religious cloaking for decades. He's not one of the dupes. He's a knowing a willing paid participant in the fraud.

Again a put down, wrong indication, and a claim to know better than I what I have and haven't read.

Note that what is probably one of the more important conferences on new religious
movements has been given highly critical data re CO$. Such as CO$ lies about its size,
fake Irish radio programs, fake stats of handling drug related crime, disconnection. Also
the Tampa Bay Times truth rundown, DMs being cited and to be deposed in the latest
lawsuit, not to mention use of shills.
 

MissWog

Silver Meritorious Patron
Scientology Ethics and by extension the blind devotion to stats are, I believe, the root of all evil within the Church of Scientology at this point in time.
And yet you proudly call yourself a Scientologist all over reddit (including using a COS symbol as your avatar) and happily without shame give the cult your money.
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

not to mention use of shills.

Too late. I already mentioned Melton.

And what do you think Melton's view of you is, as you tell him you're a Scientologist, and that Scientology is your religion, and that you're a "Clear" and an "OT," concerned about "out tech" and "outpoints," etc.?

The bottom line is whether or not Hubbard's religion angle and Hubbard's and Miscavige's religious cloaking are affirmed or not.

Over thirty years ago, Scientology Inc., and other destructive cults, became aware that the development of a collection of "scholars" would be desirable. These "experts" would affirm the destructive cults, not as cults, but as "new religions." The use of the word "cult" was to be regarded as a sign of bigotry and strongly discouraged.

Now, over thirty years later, "NRM" studies is an "established field," and there can be debates and conferences, but the prevailing meme remains: those destructive cults are to be regarded as new religions, and are to be given all the protections and perks available to any religion.

The fraud worked.

That there is some variety of view amongst "scholars" and "experts" is to be expected, but the prevailing view supports religious cloaking.

By the way, was Professor Stephen Kent there?
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

Scientology Ethics and by extension the blind devotion to stats are, I believe, the root of all evil within the Church of Scientology at this point in time.

Well then, they just need to lighten up on Ethics and stats.


___________​


According to L. Ron Hubbard, sexual perverts, including homosexuals, are made by:

Kicking a baby's head in,
running over him with a steamroller,
cutting him in half with a rusty knife,
boiling him in Lysol,
and all the while with crazy people
screaming the most horrifying
and unprintable things at him.


From 'Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health'


___________​


HCO BULLETIN OF 26 AUGUST 1982

PAIN AND SEX

There are two items in this universe that cause more trouble than many others combined.

One is PAIN.

The other is SEX.

One should know more about these things.

They may have applications but they are used by destructive beings in great volume to cave others in.

Despite the false data of Freud, psychologists, psychiatrists and other criminals, they are not native to a being. They are only artificial wavelengths. They have exact frequencies that can be manufactured. A being or a machine can synthesize either one...

Destructive creatures who do not want people big or reaching—since they are terrified of punishment due to their crimes—invented pain and sex to shrink people and cut their alertness, knowingness, power and reach.

Go into an asylum or a prison and look at the increasing institutional population and know what you are looking at. In the main, these are pain and sex addicts, decadent and degraded and no longer capable. They were sent on that route down through the ages by the psychs and here they are still in the psychs’ hands!...

These are data which emerged from recent thorough research of the whole track. This is not theory or some strange opinion. It is provable electronic fact. The waves are just synthesized.

They are the most-used tools in the campaign against beings in furthering the general goal of those creatures whose sole ambition is destruction. The universe does not happen to be either destructive or chaotic except as such obsessed creeps make it.




____________​


In the 1950s, as a way of covering for the fact that some people had mental breakdowns after Scientology involvement, Hubbard told Scientologists about LSD - the "insanity drug" - which, according to Hubbard, was covertly used by medical doctors and psychiatrists to undermine and discredit Scientology.

From the 'Professional Auditors Bulletin' of 30 September 1955:

"I could tell you about long strings of psychotics run in on the Foundation and the Association, sent in to us by psychiatrists who then, using LSD and pain-drug-hypnosis, spun them and told everyone that Dianetics and Scientology drove people insane. I could tell you about the strange politics and ambitions of psychiatry, so well covered in the book Psycho-politics [Note: Hubbard's hoax Russian textbook, which he had just secretly authored and was not yet published] , and give you a proper riddle as to why we, a small group, the only ANGLO-SAXON DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIELD OF THE MIND AND SPIRIT [sic], have been subjected to so much attack and finance... But I am not telling you stories or being dramatic. I am inviting your cooperation in your own future security..."

As for dealing with those whose behavior became erratic or an embarrassment after Scientology processing, Hubbard wrote, in the same 'PAB':

"You'll find the family physician or psychiatrist was called in midway in processing... You'll find there is a vested interest somewhere in the insanity of the person. An so testify that you suspect it. We will have on hand lots of literature on LSD..."


__________​





HCO BULLETIN 23 JANUARY 1974

THE TECHNICAL BREAKTHROUGH OF 1973!
THE INTROSPECTION RD

I have made a technical breakthrough which possibly ranks with the major discoveries of the twentieth century. It is certainly the greatest achievement of 1973 and is now being released after a final write-up of the research. It is called the Introspection Rundown.​


THE LAST REASON TO HAVE PSYCHIATRY AROUND IS GONE.

THIS PLANET IS OURS.

Psychos in ISOLATION

DBs

PTS

SPs

The anti-Scientologist

H,E&R, Human Emotion and Reaction

Homo Saps

Wogs


Here are some more excerpts from the 1976 edition of the 'Red Volumes'. It's an HCOB from January 1974.

In 1970 the actual cause of PSYCHOSIS was isolated... In the ensuing years this has been proven beyond doubt to be correct.

But what is a psychotic break?

Man has never been able to solve the psychotic break. In fact, human beings are actually afraid of a person in a psychotic break and in desperation turn to psychiatry to handle.


[And here Hubbard goes on about psychiatry, ice picks, electric shocks, etc., then...]

THIS MEANS THE LAST REASON TO HAVE PSYCHIATRY AROUND IS GONE.

[Then there are the steps of the RD, and the HCOB ends with...]

THIS PLANET IS OURS.

[Then there's the HCOB of February 1974, titled...]

INTROSPECTION RD
ADDITIONAL STEPS

ISOLATION​

In a person in a psychotic break, it is necessary to isolate them for them to destimulate and to protect them and others from possible damage...

There comes a point where the C/S must decide to release the person from isolation. To do this the C/S must know if the person can take responsibility for his actions...

The C/S's action is a direct comm line to the person by notes. The person is provided with paper and pen to reply. The C/S must determine the person's responsibility level. Example: "Dear Joe. What can you guarantee me if you are let out of isolation?"... "Dear Joe. I'm sorry but no go on coming out of isolation yet. Your actions threatened the survival of hundreds of people indirectly and 6 families directly by burning down their houses. You are unaware of the effects this could have had and still only concerned about your own welfare. You must hate the human race quite a bit."


[This eventually leads to the cognition...]

"But, but, I never meant to threaten others' survival. I just wanted to burn down their houses because I like fires. Gosh, I didn't mean it. I don't hate the human race. Oh, I really don't hate the human race."


_______________​


Scientologists - both inside and outside the CofS - value highly anyone who is a "Class VIII."

Here's a sampling of some of Hubbard's teachings on the Class VIII course:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVqN...um.exscn.net/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=6518

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwDKg5K3in8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6P4YV6CfI0

 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
Well then, they just need to lighten up on Ethics and stats.

According to L. Ron Hubbard, sexual perverts, including homosexuals, are made by:

Kicking a baby's head in,
running over him with a steamroller,
cutting him in half with a rusty knife,
boiling him in Lysol,
and all the while with crazy people
screaming the most horrifying
and unprintable things at him.


From 'Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health'

___________________________________________________________________________________

Good post! If one looks at this and takes into consideration that most of what he accused others of being guilty of was a simple manifestation of projection
, one is let in on the horrific truth about what a sick, psychopathic monster this man truly was!
Wikipedia -Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud (6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939) in the 1900s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world.[SUP][1][/SUP] For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude.
No wonder he seemed to have such over the top disdain for psychiatrists, they had him all figured out and he wouldn't stand for his flock being anywhere near them as they could so easily expose him. He probably preferred to expose himself on his terms, however God awful they were.
 
Last edited:

jea-su

Patron
No wonder he seemed to have such over the top disdain for psychiatrists, they had him all figured out and he wouldn't stand for his flock being anywhere near them as they could so easily expose him. He probably preferred to expose himself on his terms, however God awful they were.
Wow !! You are a clever one. Have you discovered a new... how can I put it - Technology on how to explain to others what they want you to understand so they can approve you in their circles. Am I close? :coolwink:
 

Veda

Sponsor
I fully agree. with the above. I took away all the non sequitur's 20 pages. Sorry.:thumbsup:

I'm not sure I understand. I was just pointing out for those that think "it's the organization" that's the problem, that the "tech" has its own nuttinesses, tricks, twists, and hidden hooks.

However, I am not saying that it's "all bad," or that there is nothing good in the subject.

Cheese/trap thread re-constituted: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?31903-Cheese-Trap-thread-reconstituted


Plus, belated welcome. :)
 
Top