Scientology is all bad

[Demented LRH]

I was stunned when I run into a so-called "natural- born Clear", I thought he was an extreme rarity because the birth is the place where majority of the engrams are installed, according to Hubbard (the guy's parents were not Scientologists at the time of his birth, so they did not practice the silent birth). Then I found out that Big Blue is swarming with natural- born Clears. I was a Scientologist at that time, so I thought that their auditors were complete idiots.

 

[uncover]

I was stunned when I run into a so-called "natural- born Clear", ..... so I thought that their auditors were complete idiots.

No no, the auditors applied only Hubbard-"Tech" of that time:

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 MARCH 1979R​

Technically, a very few thetans have never been anything but Clear. These few didn’t “go Clear” on anything; they have simply always been Clear. When a natural Clear is found it should be so stated.

And all of this "very few thetans" entered Scientology because they were Clear. Some of them where crossed as Jesus in a past life. Maybe because they had a common BT. Research still pending.

 

[Bill]

Not at all. False promises are a fact of hubbard, the church, and those enamored of ron. I am all for statements of fact. Facts are what persuade people as to the validity of a given argument.

With regard to the term clear, the definition you cite is certainly one of the definitions offered up by hubbard over the years, arguably the primary one. However, there are several other definitions that have been given (e.g. see the tech dictionary), not all of which are mutually consistent or unambiguous.

I personally am in complete agreement that most of the claims of hubbard were either completely false or so excessive as to amount to nearly the same. Moreover this was deliberate as it constitutes a marketing ploy by hubbard. Nonetheless, there was often a germ of truth in many of the claims he made, although his representations were intentionally sensationalistic.

As I've said before, I find for myself that the discussion David Mayo wrote of the state of clear makes far more sense with regard to the actual state than do hubbard's many contradictory and hyperbolic statements on the topic. Whether or not David remains of a similar mindset nonetheless his words still describe the reality of the state far better than anything else I've yet seen.


Mark A. Baker

That's an interesting reference. I doubt David still thinks exactly this way but I'd say it is revalatory of the times. I find this part the best part.

Trying to define "clear" is difficult because it is being done over a lie. We either have to restore the meaning of clear to its original absolute meaning (which means that there aren't any clears in existence), or we have to say that what people have attested to as clear is actually only a state of release or reduction.

There are no Clears. Never have been. What people are claiming as "Clears" are something much, much less.

I can agree with that.
Bill

 

[Veda]

No no, the auditors applied only Hubbard-"Tech" of that time:

This was something that popped out of Hubbard's head and instantly became a "reality" for Scientologists, who were lining up to attest to "natural Clear," check books and credit cards in hand, as they were led out of the Missions and funnelled into their "upper 'OT' Orgs" - where Hubbard had access to the money.

This was before Hubbard's looting of the Missions in '82.

It later turned out that Hubbard had decided that there were only 4 natural Clears on the planet, but lots of money was spent "up lines" before those attesting were given the bad news.

 

[Panda Termint]

I think the current and only acceptable definition of Clear within the CofS is;

"A being who no longer has his own reactive mind."

That certainly covers a lot of ground whilst, at the same time, allowing considerable wiggle room to account for non-optimum behaviour.

Of course, Natural Clear; "A Being who never had a Reactive Mind in the first place", might well include the billions of people who never heard of a Reactive Mind in the first place.

 

[sallydannce]

I think the current and only acceptable definition of Clear within the CofS is;

"A being who no longer has his own reactive mind."

That certainly covers a lot of ground whilst, at the same time, allowing considerable wiggle room to account for non-optimum behaviour.

lol

Yeah I was deemed a "clear" and look at my behaviour!!!! lol

Unreliable, bitter, and so on.

I didn't just lose my "reactive mind", I lost the whole damn thing! lol

 

[Veda]

I think the current and only acceptable definition of Clear within the CofS is;

"A being who no longer has his own reactive mind."

-snip-

How does he know it's his OWN Reactive mind?

He's still a composite case.

Answer: He can't possibly know. It's a psych-out job.

 

[Panda Termint]

Um, gee, I don't know about him, I only know about me. :confused2:
(that's just a little NOTs joke for ya!)

 

[Bill]

How does he know it's his OWN Reactive mind?

He's still a composite case.

Answer: He can't possibly know. It's a psych-out job.

Yes, it is a bit of a mindfuck. However, don't you think you'd be able to figure out if your memory was perfect or not? Don't you'd think you could figure out if you were capable of lightening-quick calculations or not?

Well, not when the Scientology mindfuck gets done with you, I guess.

Bill

 

[Panda Termint]

Lol, Bill, that's what's known in the trade as "mixing definitions".

As I said, the only acceptable definition in the CofS these days is the one I stated, "A Being who no longer has his own Reactive Mind". Definition by behavior and characteristic, such as those in DMSMH, has been "superseded" by this all-encompassing "means nothing" definition.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...

How come nobody is saying the punchline to the joke about Clear?

Take ANY definition of Clear, much as it alters or contradicts the other definitions, and you still end up with a glowing homo novus, capable of "powers" and "cause".

That Clear can finally be free and healthy and happy.............

Until they visit the registrar's office and find out that they, the Clear "....are at great risk" unless they pay for and do OT III when they will permanently remove and erase the source of all "overwhelm" that still plagues and "ruins" their very existence (requiring more Clearing).

Until they visit the registrar's office and find out that they have only scratched the surface and, essentially, are going down a 76 trillion year dwindling spiral because of unhandled NOTs (more OT III).

The gains of Scientologists are very short lived, amounting to an induced euphoria (by others and self, called a "big win") that is sufficient and adequate to obscure-by-oblivion the next dissem formula which will "find their ruin or make one real to them".

Scientologists are always in a state of ruin or being ruined. I mean, come on Scientologists and Indie Scientologist....how great can a "state" be when the person is "at great risk"? Yeah, so that is the forbidden punchline to the joke of Scientology.

Whatever they are promised or understand about the state of Clear is largely irrelevant as long as they are intoxicated to the degree that they can be seduced into taking off their [STRIKE]panties[/STRIKE] "brick overcoat" and "laying down" (hard cash).

 

[Panda Termint]

^^^Truedat!^^^

 

[Veda]

Lol, Bill, that's what's known in the trade as "mixing definitions".

As I said, the only acceptable definition in the CofS these days is the one I stated, "A Being who no longer has his own Reactive Mind". Definition by behavior and characteristic, such as those in DMSMH, has been "superseded" by this all-encompassing "means nothing" definition.

The confusion started with Hubbard in late 1970s.

Some more from the 1991 article n Clear:


...He [Hubbard] cancelled the state of "keyed out clear" by stating that it was the same state as "clear". He changed the definition of "clear" (and subsequently changed it several more times). He order ed that the folders of pcs (and the pcs themselves) who might have gone clear in orgs and missions be routed to Advanced Orgs. This action resulted in an emptying out of the orgs and missions and a flood of people arriving at the AOs.

At first, people were being declared clear regardless of what they thought they had gone clear on or when this had occurred. More importantly, they were being declared clear regardless of the state of case or condition they were in. In fact, one bulletin went so far as to advise that case and ethics trouble could be caused by a person having attained clear without having the state acknowledged. As a result, many persons who were declared clear were actually in very poor condition. This practice reflected badly on the "state of clear" and the workability of the tech. It caused a great deal of upset and confusion on the subject of clear.

At that time there was a shortage of instructions on how to handle dianetic clear technically and a general lack of data on the new subject of "dianetic clear". However persons accused of mis-handling dianetic clear were handled with heavy ethics. The "invalidation of clear" was named a Suppressive Act, while permitting someone to attest falsely was also a serious ethics offense.

A step in the procedure for handling these new clears was to establish the date when the person went clear. Sometimes the date so found would be before scientology or even prior to the pc's lifetime. When LRH heard that some persons considered that they had attained the "state of clear" in an earlier practice such as Buddhism, he became very upset. He stated that the idea that a person could go clear through any other means than scientology was "suppressive". At a certain point, he also got upset at the fact that people were concluding that they had gone clear in scientology auditing. So he specified that a person can validly go clear only in dianetic auditing. He handled the "earlier than this life time" clears by deciding that they either went clear in their last lifetime in dianetic auditing (presumably if they were young enough for this to be possible) or had attained a new state he dubbed "natural clear". His new theory was that some people had never been anything but clear. However, he refused, thereafter, to issue any further clarification of what he meant by this assertion.

Throughout this period, the definition of clear and/or dianetic clear kept changing - in the direction of dilution. Thus people came to expect less and less from the "state of clear", while the number of new clears (and thus new arrivals at AOs and Gross Income) steadily increased. None of the new definitions of "clear", and none of the new techniques for handling clears or programming them for further actions, really solved any of the problems caused by the advent of dianetic clear.

It is of interest that the definition of "clear" had already been changed several times between its first definition in DMSMH (The book, Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health, 1950, by L. Ron Hubbard) and the time the idea of "clear" was put forth. In DMSMH, a clear was said to be 4.0 on the tone scale, with no aberrations (held down sevens), no psychoses, neuroses, nor psychosomatic illnesses. The clear was said to have eidetic recall and highly enhanced perceptions and creativity. Although this chappie didn't have any OT powers, he was definitely quite a phenomenon!

It is also significant that the attributes of a clear, as described in DMSMH, were never actually attained, although in reading DMSMH, one might be led to believe that they were. When people started attesting to clear, the definition was watered down to the vague generality "at cause over mental MEST as regards the first dynamic". This definition can mean many different things to many different people. Anyone is at least somewhat causative over his own mind. So anyone can find an interpretation of this definition of "clear" that he can attest to. The states of "MEST Clear", "Theta Clear", "Cleared Theta Clear", "Clearing Course Clear", "Clear-OT", and, finally, "Dianetic Clear", and "Word Clear" were equally absolutistic when first stated, but when people started attesting to them, the definition of each, or the criterion for allowing a pc to attest to each, was similarly watered down. This sequence has been repeated over and over throughout the history of scientology...

 

[sallydannce]

...

How come nobody is saying the punchline to the joke about Clear?

Take ANY definition of Clear, much as it alters or contradicts the other definitions, and you still end up with a glowing homo novus, capable of "powers" and "cause".

That Clear can finally be free and happy.

Until they visit the registrar's office and find out that they "....are at great risk" unless they pay for an do OT III when they will remove the source of all overwhelm that still plagues them.

Until they visit the registrar's office and find out that they have only scratched the surface and, essentially, are going down a 76 trillion year dwindling spiral because of unhandled NOTs (more OT III).

The gains of Scientologists are very short lived, amounting to an induced euphoria (by others and self, called a "big win") that is sufficient and adequate to obscure the next dissem formula which will "find their ruin or make one real to them".

Scientologists are always in a state of ruin or being ruined.

Whatever they are promised or understand about the state of Clear is largely irrelevant as long as they are intoxicated to the degree that they can be seduced into taking off their [STRIKE]panties[/STRIKE] "brick overcoat" and "laying down" (hard cash).

Scientologists are constantly, consistently, endlessly (slot further syns in here) being slammed into a type of devious shame. They are "not worthy" if they don't push through the barriers and take the next level/course. They grapple with hints of shame every day, every moment, for not doing enough, giving enough, etc, etc, etc.

It is ALL about money? Being spiritually seduced to hand over obscene amounts of cash? Or is the seduction also aimed at making good decent people feel unworthy, that they "need fixing"? A sense of shame deep inside - well masked, well hidden - for being faulty/flawed?

I don't have the answers right now but I am damn well going to explore this subject deeper because all I now see in everything and everyone I ever knew in scientology was well-masked deep shame about who they were and how they needed "fixing" with the seductive Hubbard brand.

Making another feel unworthy at a core level - their essence - is a brilliant way to get them to do what you want. Scientology is based around this model. Praise them, flatter them (love-bomb) but always run the message that they are inadequate without your techniques.

Classic seduction & highly sophisticated.

 

[Infinite]

. . . I have never heard or seen a Scientologist ever admit, "No, a Clear has not gotten rid of his reactive mind" but I've heard many recommend reading DMSMH . . .

I know, infuriating ain't it? Scientologists even have the spoken word of their founder from his talk at the July 4, 1958, Clearing Congress when L Ron Hubbard admits . . .

. . . We had in Book One simply no more and no less than a rather adequate description of the Reactive Mind: the mental image picture, the engram, the secondary, and so forth. We had ways to run these things, but those ways were not the ways used to Clear. Now that's very interesting that I could be guilty of an oversight to that degree . . ."

Oversight? Fucking "oversight"? Goddamned fraud is what that is, dude.

 

[Caroline]

I think the current and only acceptable definition of Clear within the CofS is;

"A being who no longer has his own reactive mind."

That certainly covers a lot of ground whilst, at the same time, allowing considerable wiggle room to account for non-optimum behaviour.

Of course, Natural Clear; "A Being who never had a Reactive Mind in the first place", might well include the billions of people who never heard of a Reactive Mind in the first place.

Hubbard in 1981:

There has been some confusion lately on exactly what is the state of Clear.

The confusion was introduced by a statement, not mine, that the state of Clear had harmonics, which is to say there were different states of Clear.

This is not true. Although it is quite impossible to obtain an absolute in this universe, the state of Clear is, actually, about as close as one can come to it.

I have given some time to it, lately, and have come up with a definition which fits all cases. It is as follows:

A CLEAR IS A BEING WHO NO LONGER HAS HIS OWN REACTIVE MIND.

The only exception, very, very, very rare, is one who didn't have a reactive mind in the first place.

The Book One definition of Clear is valid.

Hubbard, L. (1981, 14 December) The State of Clear. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol XII, pp. 372-3). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

The Book One definition of Clear is covered in Chapter 2:

DIANETICALLY, THE OPTIMUM individual is called the Clear. One will hear much of that word, both as a noun and a verb, in this volume, so it is well to spend time here at the outset setting forth exactly what can be called a Clear, the goal of Dianetic therapy.

A Clear can be tested for any and all psychoses, neuroses, compulsions and repressions (all aberrations) and can be examined for any autogenic (self-generated) diseases referred to as psychosomatic ills. These tests confirm the Clear to be entirely without such ills or aberrations. Additional tests of his intelligence indicate it to be high above the current norm. Observation of his activity demonstrates that he pursues existence with vigor and satisfaction.

Further, these results can be obtained on a comparative basis. A neurotic individual, possessed also of psychosomatic ills, can be tested for those aberrations and illnesses, demonstrating that they exist. He can then be given Dianetic therapy to the end of clearing these neuroses and ills. Finally, he can be examined, with the above results. This, in passing, is an experiment which has been performed many times with invariable results. It is a matter of laboratory test that all individuals who have organically complete nervous systems
respond in this fashion to Dianetic clearing.

Further, the Clear possesses attributes, fundamental and inherent but not always available in an uncleared state, which have not been suspected of Man and are not included in past discussions of his abilities and behavior.

[...]

Hubbard, L. (1950) Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. (1991 ed., pp. 13-4). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

How does he know it's his OWN Reactive mind?

He's still a composite case.

Answer: He can't possibly know. It's a psych-out job.

It sure is, and I think your point about the composite case is very astute, Veda. Basically, then the person attesting has to be willing to project his/her aberrations onto some other "dynamic" or person, at least until the OT 3 indoc. The "risk" of being in the "non-interference zone" includes the inevitable cognitive dissonance when Scientologists question their "Clear" state. What a cruel scam.

Another good time to say to the Scientologists "Show me a *&%#$ Clear."

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I know, infuriating ain't it? Scientologists even have the spoken word of their founder from his talk at the July 4, 1958, Clearing Congress when L Ron Hubbard admits . . .



Oversight? Fucking "oversight"? Goddamned fraud is what that is, dude.

In that congress, immediately following his fake apology (he continued unapologetically selling the fraudulent claims and book for the next 28 years) he immediately launched into an attack on auditors, claiming that they didn't want the pc to be Clear because of their own low toned (suppressive) case.

It's a study in manipulation and psychological treachery of the highest order.

 

[Gib]

Hubbard in 1981:



The Book One definition of Clear is covered in Chapter 2:





It sure is, and I think your point about the composite case is very astute, Veda. Basically, then the person attesting has to be willing to project his/her aberrations onto some other "dynamic" or person, at least until the OT 3 indoc. The "risk" of being in the "non-interference zone" includes the inevitable cognitive dissonance when Scientologists question their "Clear" state. What a cruel scam.

Another good time to say to the Scientologists "Show me a *&%#$ Clear."

Regarding OT3.

Time frame to note.

In HOM, the new book, page 56, it states under the paragraph entitled "Assumptions" the following:

"In a great many cases, the preclear (for the awareness of awareness of the preclear is the theta being) will be found to have arrived on Earth for the first time only a few hundred years ago. "

So, with that in mind...................how can OT3 be true?

Also, how can a person then state they lived on earth 1000 years ago a warrior, or carpenter, or whatever? in their auditing sessions.

HOM book is pure evaluation on what to think may have happened (or mock up to run in session), thus you are mocking up your reactive mind.

 

[Gib]

Regarding OT3.

Time frame to note.

In HOM, the new book, page 56, it states under the paragraph entitled "Assumptions" the following:

"In a great many cases, the preclear (for the awareness of awareness of the preclear is the theta being) will be found to have arrived on Earth for the first time only a few hundred years ago. "

So, with that in mind...................how can OT3 be true?

Also, how can a person then state they lived on earth 1000 years ago a warrior, or carpenter, or whatever? in their auditing sessions.

HOM book is pure evaluation on what to think may have happened (or mock up to run in session), thus you are mocking up your reactive mind.

so in session, one runs incidents "whether real or imagined"

And the auditor doesn't evaluate, he just states "thank you your needle is floating"

thus past lives seem real. I guess.

 

[Gib]

In that congress, immediately following his fake apology (he continued unapologetically selling the fraudulent claims and book for the next 28 years) he immediately launched into an attack on auditors, claiming that they didn't want the pc to be Clear because of their own low toned (suppressive) case.

It's a study in manipulation and psychological treachery of the highest order.

Now what I post is a bit off track. I'm just pointing out my connecting dots. Your post http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?11152-HUBBARD-ADMITS-DIANETICS-BOOK-IS-A-FRAUD.

And an excerpt from it:

"Since 1951 Hubbard and the Church has ranted and raved about precision scientific technology that has been proven to work 100% of the time. They have promoted millions of copies of The Way To Happiness worldwide to teach people not to lie. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent promoting Dianetics courses and auditing so every man, woman and child on Earth could go Clear. The book DMSHM has been re-published over and over again, most recently with the release of "The Basics". It is continually asserted, stated and written that Dianetics is a science of the mind and that in about 20 hours of Dianetic auditing, anyone can reach "Clear".

Well, hub states the work was free so keep it so. Well, I'm thinking of course the work was free, after he wrote DMSMH, money came in, thus it was free, that is hub, to research more, he had a major hit. And thus an organization starts to form.

Now, all those millions of way to happy booklets are not funded by the present time CO$ or the IAS, they are funded by present time members making donations as a result of hard sell. Oh it's so subtle.

So, in essence, under DM still, he's duplicating the old man, the work is still free. Same for the donations for the "ideal orgs" or super duper power, or ot9,10, etc.

See Will Fry's you tube vids, parts 1-4, he was Bridge Pubs manager for a bit of time. All book sales stats are indeed false or created from enforcement of current PT members and not wog public demand

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnRUJpNSN4g