Chris Shelton video channel: What is wrong with Scientology.
First video: What is Wrong with Scientology, Part I
[video=youtube_share;4ml9T25oCi0]http://youtu.be/4ml9T25oCi0[/video]
That's a very well made and presented video. No doubt it, and the following videos, will help many people.
It's aimed at those still in the organization, or those considering joining, and adopts the view that it's Policy, not Tech, that's the problem.
I understand why someone would say that - and have said that myself, on occasion, when encountering, otherwise unreachable, members of the organization - but, let's face it, it's not really so.
Stepping back a bit, firstly, Scientology, since its inception in the 1950s, has been operated according to the "tight conspiracy" model, reminiscent of organized crime and how it operates. Hubbard, perhaps while feeling excessively confident, actually published this view, in a non-confidential issue, at the back of a long policy letter, in 1967, a policy letter called the 'Responsibility of Leaders', a.k.a., the Bolivar PL, a.k.a., "Pink legs."
Policy Letters, themselves, come in three main varieties, for-PR-purposes policy letters, such as Hubbard announcing, in late 1968, the "Reform Code," "cancelling" Disconnection, Fair Game, and Security Checking. This was an example of policy used entirely for purposes of protective or defensive cover.
Next are policy letters that are actually meant to be used as policy. These can be found in the Green Volumes which, supposedly, contain all policy. However, per Hubbard's "tight conspiracy" model, there are also confidential policy writings (confidential HCOPLs) that are not in the Green Volumes.
And then there are additional, even more secretive, instructions from Hubbard, concerning how things are to done and how Scientology is to be run. These writings trump (override) the non-confidential "green on white" that the average staff member regards as "policy."
Then there's the matter of the separation of "Policy" and "Tech." This sounds good at first glance and, as explained at the top of this post, is understandable when attempting the difficult task of communicating to a member, or potential member, of the Scientology organization. But how realistic is that separation? And, even if one accepts that separation, is it true that the "Tech" is not a problem?
For example, is the 1951 book, 'Science of Survival', Tech? It contains an early expression of what later would become known as Fair Game and Disconnection. Those judged to be low on the Tone Scale are to be treated in a certain way.
Where are "anti-Scientologists" on the Tone Scale?
Mmmmm....
Well, what do all the above items have in common? They're all instructions from L. Ron Hubbard.
If one is cooperating with Hubbard's religion angle, and Hubbard's and Miscavige's religious cloaking, then all of Hubbard's explanations and instructions are "scripture."
Mmmmm...
And this is just tipping ones toe in the chilly and very problematic waters of Scientology dogma.
So, I sympathize with the dilemma of attempting to explain Scientology to Scientologists. It's not an easy task, and the video, above, does an excellent job of it.
(LOL at myself on that one)
