What's new

Good things in Scientology

Well, when I did the Comm Course, and later a few different versions of the TRs Courses, I never for a moment had the viewpoint that communication was about staring at people. Is that what YOU thought it was?

If one can't sit there or stand there and comfortably observe, one will not be able to operate from any position of stability. I think Hubbard defined confront as "being able to easily face or comfortably perceive". Both are prerequisites to any decent living or working. If you can't even be there comfortably with what is there, well . . .you might as well pack it in. THAT is a prerequisite to just about anything else.

Oh yeah, "to face without flinching or avoiding". That sounds like a good thing to me. The idea of confront, to me, as I understood it, was to be able to "be there comfortably, with nothing else". That is ALL it means until one ADDS to it.

Like any "tool" it all depends HOW one uses it. Now, granted, there is much about Scientology that nudges one towards "control". But, even control is not necessarily a bad thing. I control my car. I control by steps when I am walking on the side of a 70-degree cliff on the side of a steep mountain. I control my fingers when I play the guitar. I control the razor when I am shaving. And on and on.

The "control" that most people don't like is the type that either forces one against their will, or tricks people when they are unaware of such trickery. People don't like mind control, thought control, behavioral control, etc. People don't like manipulation parading as control.

One can communicate to make friends, to make people feel good, and to make people smile. I do it all of the time. I generally look them right in the eye - but I don't "stare" at them. And reversely, one can communicate to deceive, to spread lies and to manipulate the ideas of others.

Communication is entirely neutral. I never saw it as anything else when I did the Comm Course and TRs.

I hate to sound like Baker here, but it seems to me that what you are saying above says more about YOU than it does about the subject being discussed. Why? Because I never got any of that from what I studied. :confused2:

"Confront" as a "battle mentality" is YOUR own contribution to the subject. Now, there is no doubt that there are OTHER ideas in Scientology that frame life sort of as a battle - the whole notion of life as a game (which it is in many aspects) exists in MANY other subjects and views. Now, yes, add in the KSW lunacy of "we are fighting for our eternal salvation", and THAT adds tinges of insanity to all the rest of it. But, I have long ago thrown such ideas away.

Now about auditing. I audited some, and I worked with auditors for awhile. To me, as I understood it, and as it seemed the others understood it, people have a sorry tendency to evaluate and invalidate others in their communication, so part of the TRs were to help drill auditors to NOT do that. Thus, "muzzled TRs". Another aspect was that sometimes PCs have trouble getting through the processes. Sometimes they need some encouragement. I recently described how I "turned-on" a severe urge to puke while running an engram chain. I was PISSED. I wanted to KILL the auditor. I wanted to leave the room (blow). The auditor persisted, having done TRs before, handled my origination, and got me to keep running the chain. In the end the severe feeling of sickness vanished, and I was VERY glad that he "helped me through it" with TR3 and TR4. People might giggle at the phrase, "the way out is the way through", but guess what, sometimes it is! :yes:

Comparing actions that are designed (in some cases) to help a person face and handle past areas of upset to "police interrogation" is just so horribly disingenuous.

There is so much wrong with Scientology, that as I see it, there is no need to MAKE UP and exaggerate aspects of the more innocent and innocuous stuff, much less about the stuff that actually might be helpful.

I NEVER for a moment interpreted or used ANY of the TRs as a "fight crisis". Did you? :unsure:

Now yes, GO and OSA staff take the TRs and use them in specialized versions to learn how to LIE. THAT sucks. TR-L is real. They are trained to IGNORE questions that they don't want to answer, and to misdirect attention. When some idiot stands there and bellows, "what are your crimes", he IS using TRs, but in a very STOOOOPID manner.

But for the guy on the street who walks in and does an introductory Comm Course, I would suspect that most benefit by the simple drills that help just about anybody become and remain more comfortable in his or her own skin, and address simple points like speaking clearly, not getting flustered, and persisting to get a simply question answered.

Again, the Comm Course was put together so that it would be useful and helpful to most people most of the time. Why? Sadly, NOT to help them, but to lure them into the larger scam known as Scientology. See, THAT is REALLY evil. Hubbard took the time to actually figure out valuable things that could actually benefit people, but then wrapped them up in a convoluted messy organization that was designed to entrap people.

You don't like to sound like Baker, but sometimes you do.



A particularly slippery thing about the Comms Course, as wryly observed by Ford Schwartz, is that . . .

. . . bait and switch, built in from start to finish!

As I recall my cert DID say "Communications Course". Over the years there were MANY different versions of the Comm Course. Back in the late 70s and early 80s, it was changing at least every year. I remember when an INT mission came to the org to CANCEL it fast and quick because the "Comm Course was said to be an alteration of exact LRH data". And then 6 months later, another mission came to pilot a NEW version of the Comm Course, again with parts taken out of context and put together to appeal to "raw meat". The machinations and squirming of Scientology management never failed to crack me up.

And no doubt, BAIT 'N SWITCH is rampant throughout Scientology.

Lone Star

I actually hated doing the TR's with alice in wonderland. It made no sense to me to use the lines. I've never read the book. except in parts in doing the drills. It seemed weird to me in using the lines to do the tr drills.

some lines I'd get a laugh. but really, I hated doing that drill, seemed not real.

I hated doing trs with Alice in Wonderland too. The only tr I liked was bullbaiting. I had some very creatively funny bullbaiting twins.


Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
1. Hubbard's claims were substantially bogus, certainly when interpreted literally. It is apparent they were intended as marketing hype.

2. The real benefits potentially arising to individuals are purely subjective.

3. A subjective benefit is by its nature innately unique to the individual who experiences them.

4. The character of benefits potentially obtained typically involve shifts in perspective, personal understanding, and insight.

5. Accordingly: YMMV.

6. Those who pursue the subject from the perspective of developing such personal insights and provided they are not subjected to the common abusive practices of the cult often have a positive experience with the subject.

7. Those who pursue the subject with some other goal than developing their personal insights are often disappointed with what is accomplished as opposed to what was seemingly promised.

8. This ain't physics, it's metaphysics.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION: Scientology works (when the words 'Scientology' and 'works' can have any arbitrary, subjective definition you feel good about).



A particularly slippery thing about the Comms Course, as wryly observed by Ford Schwartz, is that . . .

. . . bait and switch, built in from start to finish!

the switch is new identity or added another identity, which is a scientologist. (another identity). Yes, I'm now a scientologist, sort of implied indentity by completing the course. See, I got a new badge, must now use it, student says to himself, very subtle.

Free Being Me

Hubbard's scientology is carefully prepared, step by step to indoctrinate with progressively deeper manipulative mind control. Hypnosis, cognitive dissonance, trauma bonding, fractured belief boundaries, deceptively altered personal identity, cognitive mind rewiring, emotional abuse numbing, all of these areas were specifically chosen by hubbard to create a scientologist. What good things are contained in scientology to benefit anyone? None, this is the stuff of madness and misery to control individuals and populations and make them like it or die. The mental floss that one is internally masturbating to is there on purpose, it's there to suck you in and keep you in. And that's what keeps people in, thinking that scientology has some positive value, it's what got me in, I watch people struggle with this very issue while coping with their cult recovery. As long as a person believes scientology is beneficial to themselves and mankind, they are slaves though they don't see the shackles. Consciously choosing to see those shackles is what cult recovery is all about.


Man, this ESMB can really be a rough and tumble place to hang out.

Be sure to get your TRs in before coming here, and even with that remember - ONLY THE TIGERS SURVIVE! :hysterical:


Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Re: Wow, what a win!

THAT is so disingenuous (even though sort of funny on a very exaggerated level).

I am not any sort of Scientologist. I greatly enjoyed what I got out of TR0. I find great value in the eastern notion of "quiet mindfulness" (i.e. Eckhart Tolle, Baba Ram Das, and others).

99.999999% of the people ever involved in Scientology were NEVER AWARE of any 4 year-old thrown into a chain locker.

Jesus Hoaxster, that is such a distortion of reality. You usually do what you do far better that THAT. :ohmy: :yes:

The comment was not directed at you, myself or anyone else that had fun on TR-0.

It was directed at Scientologists who "confront" and "do nothing" when their friends are beaten. Addressed to those who apathetically do nothing when the Commodore orders Scientologists to frame Paulette Cooper, drive her insane, send her to jail or suicide. When do nothing Scientologists confront a pitiful woman, Lisa McPherson, who has had a psychotic break and is dying right in front of their eyes while they do nothing to help her.

I am not concerned at all about cult members sitting in a room getting a "buzz" from Scientology rites and rituals.

I am extremely concerned about people indoctrinated into a paramilitary cult fanatically driven to conquer the earth and turn it into a slave colony under a sociopathic cult leader.

You, dear Gadfly, are not a Scientologist. I am hardly talking about you my friend. LOL.

Xenu's Boyfriend

Silver Meritorious Patron
My comments in bolded blue....

Originally Posted by Xenu's Boyfriend

Well, if this isn't the pot calling the kettle an SP.

Huh? He has never called anyone an SP in the year I've been on this Board.

First of all, it is not anyone's place, least of all mine, to tell anyone what their experience was like in Scientology. Still, I think it is a legitimate question to ask - what constitutes a "win", and is it truly a win when there is exploitation involved to create the context of that win? For some people the answer would be no - for others yes. I appreciated Gadfly's point, and I've heard Tory Christman say in lectures that she truly liked the Comm Course, and I'm sure I would too. But I also appreciate the warning to stay as far away from the church as possible.

Which Mark and all of us do.

We've all discussed before whether anyone has a responsibility to lurkers or people who read posts here who may be thinking of joining or leaving the church. In the end, I think it was made clear, no one has a responsibility to anything or anyone except their own experience. Still, I maintain, the conversation about "wins" is a charged one for many reasons, like a parent who takes a deep, satisfying drag of a cigarette, but says to their kids, "Don't ever smoke." My concern is that people who read about "wins" will think, well there are "two sides" to the CoS, the tech works, and except for a few bad eggs here and there, it is sound organization overall.

No, I've been here a year and I've not read one post saying that the CoS is a sound organization as a whole. Nor has it been implied.

But that's my shit and I need to get over it.


What I also need to do is to learn to make points here without trying to control the discourse. The fact is, people can and should share whatever they want. So if that is your point to me here, it is well taken.

However, I do think it is fascinating that you write that no one here is advocating promoting or continuing the abusive behaviors characteristic of the cult. My experience, whether it is conscious or not, is that you do exactly that from time to time. The incredible thing is I have no idea exactly which tactics are being used on me by you, I just have a basic litmus test: I feel like shit afterwards.

Provide one piece of clear evidence of a post in which that's been done.

For example, above you write that I have no legitimate point - which is not just saying you disagree with my ideas, it attacks me personally by calling into question whether what I have to say is "legitimate" - your intent is to shame me. Then, you'll pull back next and go coy and pretend like you didn't attack me, and leave me to figure out what the fuck just happened. And you've been doing that from time to time since I got here.

So you read minds? How can you truly know anyone is trying to shame you merely by disagreeing? How is disagreeing with ideas "personally attacking" you?

It's none of my business what you think or how you choose to express yourself, Mark, but I'm just saying: there are many ways to keep the cult alive, and that includes perpetuating its attitude of disdain and contempt.

Well, if you want to make a case that he has an attitude of disdain and contempt, then so be it. But how does that perpetuate an organization's attitude of which he hasn't been a member since the early 80s?

Thanks Lone Star for breaking my comments down. With your help, I completely see the error of my ways. You're right, Mark never fucks with people's heads. I totally stand corrected. Thanks again, Buddy. Back to the topic.


Patron Meritorious
Re: Wow, what a win!

What has no direct connection to ARC? :confused2:

The "meaning" of course is vital, and that is covered in the "reality" (agreement). The meaning or significance is also covered in the "understanding". Now, there is no way in hell that ARC EQUALS Understanding. But, an interaction of affinity, reality and communication, whether knowingly or unknowingly, or consciously or unconsciously, often function to result in "an understanding". It might be an absurd understanding, or a flawed understanding, or a stupid understanding, or an incomplete understanding, or an exaggerated understanding, etc. The quality of the understanding is of no concern here. We are just talking about the factors involved in ANY sort of understanding that any person might adopt. In fact, a great many of the understandings that people entertain are quite incorrect.

But these are basic factors that function closely with some form of understanding. Agreement and understanding are almost directly linked. When any person agrees with some idea, he oir she understands it to be that way.

Definitions would probably help. In Scientology indoc, Understanding is composed of AR and C.

Hubbard said:
AFFINITY, 1. the feeling of love or liking for something or someone. Affinity is a phenomena of space in that it expresses the willingness to occupy the same place as the thing which is Affinity (Def. 1) loved or liked. The reverse of it would be antipathy, "dislike" or rejection which would be the unwillingness to occupy the same space as or the unwillingness to approach something or someone. It came from the French, a/finite, affinity, kindred, alliance, nearness and also from the Latin, a/finis, meaning near, bordering upon. (LRH De£. Notes) 2. the ability to occupy the space of, or be like or similar to, or to express a willingness to be something. (SH Spec 83, 6612C06) 3. the relative distance and similarity of the two ends of a communication line. (Dn 55!, p. 35) 4. emotional response; the feeling of affection or the lack of it, of emotion or misemotion connected with life. (HCOB 21 Jun 71 I) 5. the attraction which exists between two human beings or between a human being and another life organism or between a human being and mest or theta or the Supreme Being. It has a rough parallel in the physical universe in magnetic and gravitic attraction. The affinity or lack of affinity between an organism and the environment or between the theta and mest of an organism and within the theta (including entheta) of the organism brings about what we have referred to as emotions. (SOS Gloss) 6. in its truest definition which is
coincidence of location and beingness, that is the ultimate in affinity. (9ACC-IO, 5412CM20)

REALITY, 1. is, here on earth, agreement as to what is. This does not prevent harriers or time from being formidably real. It does not mean either that space, energy or time are illusions. It is as one knows it is. (COHA, p. 249) 2. that sequence which begins with postulates and ends with mass, which we originally defined as an agreed-upon thing. Reality is the agreed-upon apparency of existence. (CMSCS, p. 11) 3. the reality of something is the ability to place it in time and space. That's reality. Reality is an agreement. (5203CM05A) 4. is not what the individual thinks reality is. Reality is what the majority agrees it is. (SH Spec 105, 6201C25) 5. the degree of agreement reached by two ends of a communication line. In essence, it is the degree of duplication achieved between Cause and Effect. That which is real is real simply because it is agreed upon, and for no other reason. (Dn 55!, p. 35) 6. reality is a postulated reality. Reality does not have to persist to be a reality. The condition of reality is simply is-ness. That is the total condition of reality. (PXL, p. 62) 7. the agreement upon perceptions and data in the physical universe. (Sen 0-8, p. 83) 8. agreement in the mental plane and solids in the physical plane. (POW, p. 92) 9. the solid objects, the real things of life. (HCOB 21 Jun 71 I) 10. that which is made and which is commonly experienced by agreement; that which is made, or one or many make, and can be commonly experienced. That, we will define as reality. (PDC 5) 11. is composed of the degree of duplication possible, and this is also describable under the heading of agreement. Reality is a quality which depends upon duplication and in the action of duplication expertly or poorly done we find agreement and disagreement. (PAB 44) 12. R=Mass or agreement. (HCOB 27 Sept 68 II)

COMMUNICATION, 1. the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source point across a distance to receipt point with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source point. (HCOB 5 Apr 73) 2. the first and most basic definition of any part of communication is that communication or any part thereof is a consideration. As duplication is a consideration, communication is possible to the degree that the preclear can freely make considerations. (COHA, pp. 170-171) 3. the operation, the action, by which one experiences emotion and by which one agrees. Communication is not only the modus operandi, it is the heart of life and is by thousands of per cent the senior in importance to affinity and reality. (PAB 1) 4. any ritual by which effects can be produced and perceived. Thus a letter, a bullet, the output of theta "flitter" are all, to us, eommunication. (PAB 4) 5. the ability to translate sympathy or some component of sympathy from one terminal to another terminal. (Spr Lect 5, 5303CM25) 6. an interchange of energy from one beingness to another; in the thetan and in Homo sapiens communication is known as perception. (Sen 8-8008, p. 21) 7. the handling of particles, of motion. (PAB 1) 8. the interchange of perception through the material universe between organisms or the perception of the material universe by sense channels. (Sen 0-8, p. 83) 9. the interchange of ideas across space. (Sen 0-8, p. 36) 10. the use of those sense channels with which the individual contacts the physical universe. (DAB, Vol. II, p. 218)

UNDERSTANDING, 1. understanding is composed of affinity, reality and communication. (SH Spec 79, 6609C01) 2. knowingness could simply be a potential understanding. It could be an ability being carried forward, an action taking place; understanding is an action. Understanding is knowingness of life to a certain direction and object and thing or action. The understanding is knowingness in action. We break down this and we get affinity, reality and communication. (5411CM05) 3. understanding is a sort of a total solvent, it's the universal solvent, it washes away everything. (SH Spec 79, 6609C01)

Hubbard, L. Ron. (1975). Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary. Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California.

ARC triangle tech is integral to Scientology's TRs tech. (Wikipedia: Training Routines).

Hubbard said:
COMMUNICATION COURSE, 1. because the H.A.S. Course is a course about communication, it is often called the Comm Course (comm being for communication). (HCO PL 15 Apr 71R) 2. a basic Scn course consisting mainly of the TRs; also called the H.A.S. (Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist Course). (PRD Gloss) See H.A.S. COURSE.

COMMUNICATION CYCLE, 1. a cycle of communication and two-way communication are actually two different things. A cycle of communication is not a two-way communication in its entirety. In a cycle of communication we have Joe as the originator of a communication addressed to Bill. We find Bill receiving it and then Bill originating an answer or acknowledgement back to Joe and thus ends the cycle. (Dn 55!, p. 82) 2. consists of just cause, distance, effect with intention, attention, duplication and understanding. (HCOB 23 May 1971R IV) Abbr. comm cycle.

COMMUNICATION FORMULA, 1. communication is the interchange of ideas or objects between two people or terminals. The Formula of Communication and its precise definition is: Cause, Distance, Effect with Intention and Attention and a duplication at Effect of what emanates from Cause. (PXL Gloss) 2. the formula of communication is: Cause, Distance, Effect with Intention, Attention and Duplication with Understanding. (HCOB 5 Apr 73)

Hubbard, L. Ron. (1975). Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary. Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California.


Here's some hopefully helpful background. Hubbard called his ARC triangle a "magic triangle" and indeed it functions in a similar way as the Rosicrucian philosophic triangle.

Hubbard said:
In Dianetics we have a magic triangle—only we don’t call it a magic triangle. It is just called ARC.

Hubbard, L. (1951, 17 August) The ARC Triangle. Special Course in Human Evaluation. Lecture conducted from Wichita, Kansas.

The philosophical mind will accept the law of the triangle. Each of us demonstrates this law in various ways in our daily lives. We know, for example, that every effect is dependent upon two points of the triangle. There are two causes, as we may call them—one active and one relatively passive. We speak of the third point of the triangle as being the point of manifestation. When there is any change in the unity of these two points or if they are separated, then the effect which followed from the unity is either changed or it ceases to be.

Lewis, R. (1957) The Conscious Interlude. [pdf] Bloomington: Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC.

Here's what Hubbard said about how he came up with the ARC triangle:

Hubbard said:

Let’s take the Tarot. The Tarot is a deck of cards. It contains the formal deck of cards and then there are 26 other cards. These other cards are picture cards of one sort or another. They have very interesting signs and symbols on them. You look at the Tarot and you are suddenly impressed with the fact that it is a philosophic machine to produce answers in some fashion.

Men have been trying to unravel the mystery of the Tarot for some thousands of years. It is probably around four or five thousand years old. It has, for instance, the symbol of the triangle, the circle and a dot. It’s the problem of the microcosm and the macrocosm. It’s the principle of the internal and external universes, objective and subjective knowledge and so forth.

One day I was fooling around with some of these old principles and I suddenly took a look at that triangle. I had two things that were related. I knew that communication was somehow related to affinity. All of a sudden a third point fell into view: reality. A piece of knowledge!

Communication, affinity, reality—a very useful little triangle. The triangle has been kicking around in the Tarot for a long time. I have had some strange and obtuse definitions connected to it, but it is a piece of knowledge.

The whole Tarot was probably in the library at Alexandria. But this deck of cards comes to us solely because it was used by gypsies in fortune telling, and in Egypt by fortune tellers. That is a strange route to get knowledge from.

And yet man has come forward along his track, and he has brought his knowledge forward with him. We are a great civilization today because we can communicate knowledge readily and rapidly via the printed word and other means. A civilisation progresses somewhat in ratio to its ability to communicate.

Hubbard, L. (1950, 11 November) Axioms and Fundamentals About Data. Professional Course. Lecture conducted from Elizabeth, New Jersey.

Incidentally, the figure depicted in the Temperance card is the Archangel Michael. (Case, P.F. (1990) The Tarot. Los Angeles: Builders of the Adytum.) Hubbard was apparently knowledgeable about the Archangel Michael when he was running his op on Jack Parsons in 1945-1946:

Jack Parsons said:
Although Ron has no formal training in Magick, he has an extraordinary amount of experience and understanding in the field. From some of his experiences I deduce he is in direct touch with some higher intelligence, possibly his Guardian Angel. He describes his Angel as a beautiful winged woman with red hair whom he calls the Empress and who has guided him through his life and saved him many times...Recently, he says, because of some danger, she has called the Archangel Michael to guard us...

Carter, John. (1999). Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of Jack Parsons. Venice, California: Feral House.

Hubbard also linked affinity with a condition of rapport, as established with hypnosis:

Hubbard said:
When you throw a person out of communication, his affinity with existence is broken. Affinity is that cohesive force which they call love. Of course, love is a dual word; in this interpretation affinity is a word which was brought out of the ancient days of magic—the affinity of existence.

In hypnosis when the operator hypnotizes a subject, they say a rapport is established. Actually they seem to dream it up as a special condition, but it is not a very special condition. It is something of affinity.

Hubbard, L. (1950, 4 August) Relation of Affinity, Communication and Reality. Professional Course. Lecture conducted from Elizabeth, New Jersey.

Cf. what Hubbard said about rapport with the following instruction in LBM (Lesser black magick):

Uncle Setnakt said:
Autumn's here with the promise of Halloween brightly shining. Millions play with the dark side so let's pump our Greater Black Magic and make the objective world permanently more subject to our wills. In the meantime, let Uncle Setnakt tell you how you can move someone against his will and have him enjoy it!

1. Establish rapport. You can only manipulate your friends, enemies will never open up to you one on one. There are two quick ways to establish rapport: Satir modes and common ground. If you really want to know about Satir modes, read a book by Susan Elgin called __The Gentle Art of Verbal Self Defense__, but a quick understanding comes from listening to your target. Is she visual (does she say, "Do you see this? Does this scan?"); auditory ("Do you hear what I'm saying?"); or tactile ("I can't get a handle on this."). Once you've identified their mode, adopt it. Very quickly will your target let his guard down. Common ground merely means areas of thought you share with your target. Don't fake this unless you have to. You'll generally find some common thing to talk about. This will make the process more enjoyable for you and save you from the strain of lying. Remember, rapport is the first step for one-on-one LBM!



Xenu's Boyfriend

Silver Meritorious Patron
XB let me illustrate it for you. You've been here long enough to get what I'm about to say...

The true reality on this matter is balanced somewhere between Helluvahoax and Mark Baker. And that point of balance is Gadfly.

You're welcome. :biggrin:

I'm irritated with your last post, LS, but I saw just this and it is funny. And I don't hate Mark or want to attack him.


Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Man, this ESMB can really be a rough and tumble place to hang out.

Be sure to get your TRs in before coming here, and even with that remember - ONLY THE TIGERS SURVIVE! :hysterical:

I once had a conversation with Karen#1 who wasn't likin' the vibe that week on ESMB at a alllll. I told her it's like goin' down and hangin' in da hood. Disturbin! People wuz buggin'! Be a damn nasty-ass ghetto sometimes! LOLOL.


Xenu's Boyfriend

Silver Meritorious Patron
I actually hated doing the TR's with alice in wonderland. It made no sense to me to use the lines. I've never read the book. except in parts in doing the drills. It seemed weird to me in using the lines to do the tr drills.

some lines I'd get a laugh. but really, I hated doing that drill, seemed not real.

Jason Beghe has an amazing story on his video where he talks about being in this "Alice in Wonderland" TR2 drill, he gets in trouble...he tells the entire story at 53:50



Gold Meritorious Patron
I understand the title of this thread, even the intent of it, I think.


Nothing personal OP, just how I feel about "Good things in scientology".

The lyrics is often accidentally appropriate, so as the video imagery, imo.

Great voice and music too. Watch, reflect and possibly enjoy.

Peace to all.


I understand the title of this thread, even the intent of it, I think.


Nothing personal OP, just how I feel about "Good things in scientology".

The lyrics is often accidentally appropriate, so as the video imagery, imo.

Great voice and music too. Watch, reflect and possibly enjoy.

Peace to all.

Well, it's a pretty simple message, and mostly has to do with being able to recognize, and accurately describe, a disguise.

If someone can't grok the idea that "good" or "goodness" can be used as a disguise, then "good" and "goodness" (or anything "positive") become the ultimate disguise.

This is just one small aspect of Scientology's Applied Sneakiness Tech.

I've shaved down two posts from this thread as much as I can to make the message as concise as possible.

If there were no good in Scientology, it wouldn't be much of a trap.

The good is used as disguise, and as bait to lead-in the unsuspecting.



Asking a person, "How ya doing?" and listening attentively, and acknowledging, qualifies as "auditing" by an introductory definition of "auditing," as does asking a person to recall a pleasant experience, listening, and then acknowledging.

Such introductory actions, presented as "auditing" are often what leads a person into Scientology, and causes the person to pursue the Scientology "bait and switch" Grade Chart.

Scientology/Scientology Philosophy/Scientology Doctrine, is sneaky. It wraps itself in positives so as to mislead the unsuspecting.


Thoroughly describing Scientology is the most dangerous thing that can be done to Scientology.

Scientology uses good people, and uses - sometimes - good ideas, to mislead, to build confidence, and to trap.

A description without noting the above is incomplete, IMO.


That's the best I can do. :)


Squirrel Extraordinaire

On the nuances of words ( You were arguing with Profesor Baker that the word "technology" is not very fitting for what Scientology claims to be - and I agree with your arguments there).....The word "confront", it's overused, and the battle-mentality it conjures up seems to assume that communication is going to be about an ongoing fight or flight crisis. It seems basically a huge flaw in a basic communication course. I still remember doing the comm course and reading about the rationale behind it --to prepare auditors to drive through any resistance and get the pc to answer the question. Good for a police interrogation course maybe.

Hubbard redefines the word CONFRONT to mean "face without flinching." There is no faintest whiff of "challenge" in that redefinition in the way it is used in TRs.

I got into Scientology in 1972, at age 22. My first course was the comm course, and I had joined the Sea Org within three weeks of starting it and that was that for 23 years. My understanding of the word "confront," in regular English, was heavily influenced by Hubbard's redefinition. It was only really several years after leaving the SO in 1996 and being immersed in normal non-Scn culture that I gained a normal understanding of the word confront — before that I would often replace someone's "confront with challenge" meaning with the Scn "confront without challenge" meaning.

Nowadays, I can clearly see the two different meanings, the regular one and the Scn one. I also see that some people do not have such a clear differentiation between the two, which is totally understandable considering my own experience.

I don't know what you understand. Possibly the "total non-challenge" aspect is missing.