HUBBARD ADMITS DIANETICS BOOK IS A FRAUD.

[Björkist]

It is literally *impossible* to divorce 'Scientology' from L. Ron Hubbard.
No matter how much you'd like to...

Zinj

 

[Veda]

Ho hum

The Scientology Wisdom Channel. Mixing interesting non-Scientology videos and colorful graphics with Scientology propaganda.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScientologyWisdom

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=ScientologyWisdom&view=videos

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=ScientologyWisdom&view=groups

 

[Moonchild]

Having looked through this thread a certain point occurs to me (not missed by others I think) which I presume to offer by way of condensation of some of the comments made:

O.K. Hubbard revised his views over the years on the efficacy of DMSMH and other aspects of Dianetics...fair enough if presented as such to incoming tyros.

But he didn't do that did he? This of course was the whole original thrust of this thread.

It seems to me, if I'm not guilty of gross misunderstanding, that LRH, having said 'abandon your search, the answers have been found'...having in effect proposed Dianetics and eventually Scientology as the 'master-science' of life....at every step of the way maintained that this was the 'thoroughly-researched and proven-out truth'....no? Despite the fact that revision was ongoing, by his own admission and evidence; there was 'Standard Dianetics' then there was 'New Era Dianetics' for example; how many revisions of the def. of 'clear' and Christ knows what else (I don't) others here may.

Taking the cynical view, one might say "well, he tried this and that, his pants came down so he had to come up with something 'new and better' to plaster over the cracks until that too was found to have feet of clay, and so on... this is the 'point' I alluded to at the beginning. This I suspect is the trail of disingenuousness that eventually leads to the fabled 'OT' levels.

Shifting the emphasis more than somewhat, some have said that Hubbard was a 'complex and mutable character' as if in expiation of his conduct.
Well, me dears... I'm a complex and mutable character and so are you; anyone reading this is pretty much the same I imagine or you probably wouldn't be here on this board in the first place.

The diff. is that we aren't trying to create a kind of 'proto-new world order' called Scientology or Buggerology or as you please that depends upon the subjugation and exploitation of whatever victims can be induced into its clutches by whatever disingenuous means (go on, tell me all those FSM drills are just in my imagination) which is, in fact, precisely what the Hubster intended from alpha to omega.

This (BTW) is why I don't buy the 'no ad-hominem' argument which I've encountered now and then on this board; in the case of LRH the 'ad-hominem' attack is justified, proper and indeed essential. The very nature of the man's well-documented character and purpose, to say nothing of the conduct of his 'church' whilst under his aegis (or am I dreaming again?) requires and indeed demands this.

And please...don't come back to me with a bunch of hair-splitting crap about 'how do you know what his purposes were...etc.' If you can't work that out for yourself, you barely deserve the two legs you walk upon.

Earlier on in this thread Fluffy made the comment about Scientology: 'half a loaf better than none'; in broad principle I'd agree with that but would re-adjust the ratio to maybe 5% better than none if youse get my drift?

Benedictus....

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

MOONCHILD posted: O.K. Hubbard revised his views over the years on the efficacy of DMSMH and other aspects of Dianetics...fair enough if presented as such to incoming tyros. But he didn't do that did he? This of course was the whole original thrust of this thread.
I hereby testify as an expert witness in this matter before the court, that this is QUITE PRECISELY the entire point of this thread.

MOONCHILD posted: Taking the cynical view, one might say "well, he tried this and that, his pants came down so he had to come up with something 'new and better' to plaster over the cracks until that too was found to have feet of clay, and so on... this is the 'point' I alluded to at the beginning. This I suspect is the trail of disingenuousness that eventually leads to the fabled 'OT' levels.
It appears to be instinctive to the charlatan, as his spiritual ponzi bridge begins to collapse underfoot, to galvanize doubting contributors to stay the journey by discovering and announcing at intervals a miraculous succession of exponentially greater returns on their investment...uh, just around the corner a little bit further... (ergo, the OT levels)

 

[Veda]

Scientology PR person, Laurie Hamilton, handles multiple "wogs" daily.

Scientology's approach to "explaining" Scientology varies, depending on the particular situation, and the particular "public."

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Scientology-1751/Critical-thinking-Scientology.htm

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Scientology-1751/LRH-Biography-REALLY-Important.htm

By breaking down Scientology into smaller and smaller pieces, judgement of Scientology is supposed to become impossible - well, at least "critical" judgement, that is - somehow praise, and "rave success stories," are alright.

Just another gimmick used by Scientology, which is almost "pathological" in its preoccupation with gimmicks.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

What if in 1951 Hubbard wrote a book call GASinetics, The Modern Science of Fuel Efficiency?

The book heralds a startlingly effective discovery which allows you to increase your car's gas mileage from 20 mpg to 500 mpg! The book costs only $20. It promises that anyone can do it at home in their own driveway in less than 20 hours. Genius!

The book is a sensational bestseller. Everyone is converting their car!

But people are running into small glitches on converting their cars and so local Hubbard Centers are started all over the country where you can drive in and have some help doing your conversion. Sounds like a good idea, very helpful and kind of Hubbard to do that! Thanks Ron, can't wait to get my conversion!!

But now instead of paying $20 for the book, customers are paying professional rates. Well actually when they ask about Gasinetics they are told some very, very exciting news. Hubbard has made an even more startling discovery, called SuperSaverology and it gets 1000 miles to the gallon!!!! Guaranteed! People sign up right away.

It is discovered that the original GASinetics book doesn't actually work. Hubbard admits it. But for 50 years afterward, he keeps selling the book, somehow forgetting to tell people that it cannot make your car get 500 mpg.

Meanwhile, the original Gasinetics book gets re-published dozens of times but it's always the same as the original book. No mention of SuperSaverology or the fact that Gasinetics did not result in even one (1) documented case of anyone ever getting more than 20 mpg after the "conversion".

After some decades, Hubbard discovers the ultimate secret of energy in this universe and creates confidential materials that allow your vehicle to get unlimited (infinite!) mileage without even using gas! It is the dawn of a new era, a world without fuel shortages! A world with people being able to travel endlessly at no expense. A world without war in the middle east over oil! The technology is called OG9. Operating Gasfree SuperInfinitely (8 is the infinity symbol, so 9 is way beyond infinity!!!) This guy is amazing!!!

Hubbard's worldwide organizations make billions and keep selling the original book that doesn't work...

And so it goes....and, all of the complainers that didn't achieve 1000 mpg are easily explained, because SuperSaverology only works, Hubbard scientifically states, if it is applied 100% correctly. People are just not doing it right because Hubbard scientifically said that he scientifically proved it scientifically works 100% of the time scientifically. (see "Keeping SuperSaverology Working")

At a very special and very confidential briefing I learned that even though OG9 will stop war, it cannot be released until way, way, way more people buy the SuperSaverology Conversion. The reason they didn't want to release OG9 and stop war right now was also confidential so, understandably, they couldn't tell me that part, but I was blown away anyways!!

FOOTNOTE: Strangely, it was discovered, every single solitary one of the cars that received the Gasinetics or the SuperSaverology conversion still only gets 20 mpg, even the ones Hubbard's personally trained specialists did! It appears that everyone has been ordered re-purchase and re-study all of Hubbard's works, beginning with Book I Gasinetics The Modern Science of Fuel Efficiency. Even the OG9 vehicles have been recalled. Hmmm, must be some super secret stuff they are doing to those cars! Wow! It must be amazing if they can't say what it is! Well, that's the update and that should do it! Personally? Now that the Golden Age of SuperSaverology is here, I can't wait to get my car standardly converted per the 100% workable and scientifically proven tech!!!

 

[Tiger Lily]

Great analogy moonchild! Loved it.

-TL

 

[Tiger Lily]

I've no direct knowledge of the man. My "conclusions" such as they are are based on my own experiences with people generally, what I understand from Hubbard's various communications, from generally available sources, and from the conversations I've had with people who have had direct personal knowledge & experience of him.

He was clever & talented. He was in many ways "gifted" and in some ways "cursed". I'm not a medical person but I think he was quite likely bipolar (aka manic-depressive).

His actual life history, not the "sanitized" Co$ bio, is quite consistent with BPD. His "plus" points and "minus" points both are the sorts of traits commonly associated with people with the disorder. It's pretty clear he wouldn't admit to himself that he could have a diagnosis of a mental disorder if such were the case. He appears to have needed to be "perfect".

That's my "take" on LRH. It's sad really.


Mark A. Baker

Thanks Mark. . . that would explain the dichotomy that you see in the man. I don't know much about BPD, but that makes sense with some of the stories that you hear from those who knew him. I wonder if he'd been diagnosed or evaluated at some point and his railing against the psychs was just a big ser fac; his way of "proving" how wrong they were, and maintaining that "perfection" he so needed to attribute to himself.

TL

 

[Voltaire's Child]

It is literally *impossible* to divorce 'Scientology' from L. Ron Hubbard.
No matter how much you'd like to...

Zinj

Wasn't talking about that. Was talking about someone taking on Hubbard as leader or master and was talking about people assigning motives and beliefs to others.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Having looked through this thread a certain point occurs to me (not missed by others I think) which I presume to offer by way of condensation of some of the comments made:

O.K. Hubbard revised his views over the years on the efficacy of DMSMH and other aspects of Dianetics...fair enough if presented as such to incoming tyros.

But he didn't do that did he? This of course was the whole original thrust of this thread.

It seems to me, if I'm not guilty of gross misunderstanding, that LRH, having said 'abandon your search, the answers have been found'...having in effect proposed Dianetics and eventually Scientology as the 'master-science' of life....

It seems to me that too many people failed to recognize and duly account for LRH's clearly self-centered fixations. They often failed to rely upon their own judgement. Rather than discriminating between possibly useful practices in scientology techniques and using what made sense to them, they simply accepted whole hog the "words of the master" as "truth". Having discovered later that their paragon of leadership was in fact a flawed & troubled individual like others, they still prefer to ignore their own responsibility for the choices they made and their own lapses. Instead, they reject everything they encountered in scientology as being the product of someone else's deliberate subterfuge.

The problem with this thesis is that it focuses all "significance" upon Hubbard, just exactly as did Hubbard. It ignores the contributions that others made to the development of the actual tech of scientology as well as the remarkable benefits experienced by thousands of others over a period of several decades.

Shifting the emphasis more than somewhat, some have said that Hubbard was a 'complex and mutable character' as if in expiation of his conduct.

Expiation is your idea. It doesn't apply in the thinking of others.

This (BTW) is why I don't buy the 'no ad-hominem' argument which I've encountered now and then on this board; in the case of LRH the 'ad-hominem' attack is justified, proper and indeed essential.

If you want to insult Hubbard go ahead. It's an utterly useless practice and says a great deal more about the nature of your own character than it does about Hubbard. But hey, some people revel in hatred. On the whole, Emma doesn't. Whether she wishes to indulge the practice on ESMB with regard to Hubbard is for her to choose.

However, don't confuse insulting Hubbard with rational argument against the practice of scientology. The significance of "ad hominem" is that it is both rude as well as promoting fallacious logic when used in disputation.

Benedictus....

Ironic that you advocate "ad hominem" attack yet sign as "benedictus". Might want to research the meaning of the latter.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

-snip-

If you want to insult Hubbard go ahead. It's an utterly useless practice and says a great deal more about the nature of your own character than it does about Hubbard. But hey, some people revel in hatred.

-snip-

And some revel in manipulative doubletalk and PR:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=107299&postcount=54

 

[Free to shine]

What if in 1951 Hubbard wrote a book call GASinetics, The Modern Science of Fuel Efficiency?

The book heralds a startlingly effective discovery which allows you to increase your car's gas mileage from 20 mpg to 500 mpg! The book costs only $20. It promises that anyone can do it at home in their own driveway in less than 20 hours. Genius!

The book is a sensational bestseller. Everyone is converting their car!

But people are running into small glitches on converting their cars and so local Hubbard Centers are started all over the country where you can drive in and have some help doing your conversion. Sounds like a good idea, very helpful and kind of Hubbard to do that! Thanks Ron, can't wait to get my conversion!!

But now instead of paying $20 for the book, customers are paying professional rates. Well actually when they ask about Gasinetics they are told some very, very exciting news. Hubbard has made an even more startling discovery, called SuperSaverology and it gets 1000 miles to the gallon!!!! Guaranteed! People sign up right away.

It is discovered that the original GASinetics book doesn't actually work. Hubbard admits it. But for 50 years afterward, he keeps selling the book, somehow forgetting to tell people that it cannot make your car get 500 mpg.

Meanwhile, the original Gasinetics book gets re-published dozens of times but it's always the same as the original book. No mention of SuperSaverology or the fact that Gasinetics did not result in even one (1) documented case of anyone ever getting more than 20 mpg after the "conversion".

After some decades, Hubbard discovers the ultimate secret of energy in this universe and creates confidential materials that allow your vehicle to get unlimited (infinite!) mileage without even using gas! It is the dawn of a new era, a world without fuel shortages! A world with people being able to travel endlessly at no expense. A world without war in the middle east over oil! The technology is called OG9. Operating Gasfree SuperInfinitely (8 is the infinity symbol, so 9 is way beyond infinity!!!) This guy is amazing!!!

Hubbard's worldwide organizations make billions and keep selling the original book that doesn't work...

And so it goes....and, all of the complainers that didn't achieve 1000 mpg are easily explained, because SuperSaverology only works, Hubbard scientifically states, if it is applied 100% correctly. People are just not doing it right because Hubbard scientifically said that he scientifically proved it scientifically works 100% of the time scientifically. (see "Keeping SuperSaverology Working")

At a very special and very confidential briefing I learned that even though OG9 will stop war, it cannot be released until way, way, way more people buy the SuperSaverology Conversion. The reason they didn't want to release OG9 and stop war right now was also confidential so, understandably, they couldn't tell me that part, but I was blown away anyways!!

FOOTNOTE: Strangely, it was discovered, every single solitary one of the cars that received the Gasinetics or the SuperSaverology conversion still only gets 20 mpg, even the ones Hubbard's personally trained specialists did! It appears that everyone has been ordered re-purchase and re-study all of Hubbard's works, beginning with Book I Gasinetics The Modern Science of Fuel Efficiency. Even the OG9 vehicles have been recalled. Hmmm, must be some super secret stuff they are doing to those cars! Wow! It must be amazing if they can't say what it is! Well, that's the update and that should do it! Personally? Now that the Golden Age of SuperSaverology is here, I can't wait to get my car standardly converted per the 100% workable and scientifically proven tech!!!

Love it!

 

[Moonchild]

Reply to Mark A. Baker

It seems to me that too many people failed to recognize and duly account for LRH's clearly self-centered fixations. They often failed to rely upon their own judgement. Rather than discriminating between possibly useful practices in scientology techniques and using what made sense to them, they simply accepted whole hog the "words of the master" as "truth". Having discovered later that their paragon of leadership was in fact a flawed & troubled individual like others, they still prefer to ignore their own responsibility for the choices they made and their own lapses. Instead, they reject everything they encountered in scientology as being the product of someone else's deliberate subterfuge.

Assuming we're talking about the Church of Scn. here I confess myself baffled by what you're saying. When was a church member allowed to exercise discrimination or judgment? Of course they 'simply accepted whole hog the "words of the master" as "truth"'...what other 'choice' did they have? What was the point and purpose of KSW1? Hubbard presented himself as 'Source' and that was that; if you argued the point you'd wind up in ethics pretty damn fast on the premise that you were (of course) wrong.

So what's this "prefer to ignore their own responsibility for the choices they made and their own lapses" bit then? How does that work since any 'choice' was in fact a matter of church diktat?

To assert "instead they reject everything they encountered in scientology...etc." is a bit of a generalisation as I think you'd agree; certainly true for some but not for others such as, for example, myself. But you meant that as a figure of speech rather than a statement of fact, yes?

The problem with this thesis is that it focuses all "significance" upon Hubbard, just exactly as did Hubbard. It ignores the contributions that others made to the development of the actual tech of scientology as well as the remarkable benefits experienced by thousands of others over a period of several decades.

Yes that thesis agrees with Hubbard inasmuch as it fixes all significance on him; that I suppose reflects the responsibility that comes with proclaiming oneself 'Source' in the first place. To what extent did Hubbard acknowledge the contributions made by others?

Expiation is your idea. It doesn't apply in the thinking of others.

Oh I see; so the characterisation of LRH as 'complex and mutable' had nothing to do with justifying his actions then? Silly me...
I wouldn't mind betting though that some 'others' might have formed an impression not totally dissimilar to mine since I don't imagine myself uniquely-gifted in my comprehension of English....

If you want to insult Hubbard go ahead. It's an utterly useless practice and says a great deal more about the nature of your own character than it does about Hubbard. But hey, some people revel in hatred. On the whole, Emma doesn't. Whether she wishes to indulge the practice on ESMB with regard to Hubbard is for her to choose...

No, it's neither about insulting Hubbard nor revelling in hatred; it's about depicting the man's character. Given what we now know about LRH's past and background, his (I think, fairly obvious) motives, don't you think it sensible (by way of multiple irony) to employ that fine tool of his own devising the 'Tone Scale' to assess him?

This was a man who considered that 'all men are your slaves'; who created the 'Fair Game' policy to crush any who stood against him; who clearly sought the enslavement of any he could seduce into his clutches toward his own profit under the guise of 'offering spiritual freedom'...do I need to go on? If that isn't 1.1 and supressive then I don't know was is.

In all seriousness, would you buy a used car from such a person? Fucked if I would, much less commend my sanity and spiritual well-being to his tender mercies.

However, don't confuse insulting Hubbard with rational argument against the practice of scientology. The significance of "ad hominem" is that it is both rude as well as promoting fallacious logic when used in disputation....

As I said earlier, it's not about insulting Hubbard but rather depicting the man's character. As for rational argument against the practice of Scn. it seems to me that the vast majority of people who have encountered Scientology are no longer involved in it; does that speak to rationality at all do you think?

I agree that 'ad hominem' when employed as a means to hurl insults about the place is less than productive; however, when employed as a means to expose the character and discernible motives of a subject it's perfectly valid.

Good grief...did Hubbard ever refrain from 'ad hominem' attacks on his opponents? Does the phrase 'breath-taking hypocrisy' resonate with you Mark?

Ironic that you advocate "ad hominem" attack yet sign as "benedictus". Might want to research the meaning of the latter.

Perhaps I should have used the icon to make the intended irony clearer?

Regards.



Mark A. Baker[/QUOTE]

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

duplicate post

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

There are an infinite number of discussions and diversions on the subject of Hubbard and his claims for Clear and Operating Thetan.

One can endlessly speculate, pontificate and engage in sophistry.

But, one enduring truth remains.

He lied.

He never created a Clear. Not one. No one. Period.

He never brought anyone, himself included, to the mythical state of Operating thetan. Not one. No one. Period.

All pendantic debates are meaningless after the above facts are realized.

Sure, his efforts might have resulted in people saying they "felt better" but that is likewise the province of health clubs, yoga, pilates, Jenny Craig, Deepak Chopra, bible studies, meditation, prayer, exercise, aerobics, camping, sports, et al, ad infinitum. No one in those endeavors has transcended the human condition. They ARE the human condition.

One can admonish or attempt to reverse the spin and momentum of those who observe Hubbard's profound failures. This misses the point. It is not a debate about Hubbard's critics, it is a magnification of the results of Hubbard's experiments.

Unfortunately, under the unforgiving lenses of inspection, Hubbard's claims and "results" are found to be entirely false. Not one Clear has stepped forward with the stated abilities. Not one OT has volunteered to demonstrate his supposed stunning advances.

None have stepped up in defense of Clear or OT or Hubbard or Scientology because...(simply) none exist. There are no Clears. There are no OT's.

The rest of the postings, noise and rumbling you hear is misdirection.

If anyone had any proof of such results, they would proudly exclaim it with videotaped verification. ON THE DAY YOU CAN GO TO YOUTUBE AND FIND CLEARS AND OTS DEMONSTRATING THEIR ADVANCED ABILITIES IS THE DAY YOU CAN START TAKING HUBBARD'S CLAIMS SERIOUSLY. But, if no one in the world steps up and posts a video of themself levitating an orange, you can ignore all of Hubbard's fruity claims.

If anyone had any "ability" that Hubbard asserts, they would simply SHOW IT. Why not?

To assume that such results and states exist, but that no one has stepped forward to demonstrate it (for unknown reasons) is in itself irrational. That is not how life works. Excuses or justifications are not relevant. If Clear or OT exists, show it. End of discussion. Anyone thinking "clearly" sees the utter simplicity of this test. Show it or don't talk about it any more.

People do show their skills, their results...

After an elapse of 60 years, one would properly believe that an empowered Clear or OT would simply step forth to end the unproductive debate.

If no one has stepped forward, after 60 years, then one can safely assume that there is nothing to step forward about.

 

[Kha Khan]

Assuming we're talking about the Church of Scn. here I confess myself baffled by what you're saying. When was a church member allowed to exercise discrimination or judgment? Of course they 'simply accepted whole hog the "words of the master" as "truth"'...what other 'choice' did they have? What was the point and purpose of KSW1? Hubbard presented himself as 'Source' and that was that; if you argued the point you'd wind up in ethics pretty damn fast on the premise that you were (of course) wrong.

You'd "wind up in ethics pretty damn fast?" So what?

"What other choice did they have?" How about say, "You know what, this is bullshit." Then walk out the door and never come back.

I recall years ago I was whining to a friend about a bad relationship with a nutty girlfriend. His response? "Is anyone holding a gun to your head?" "No." End of discussion. If you don't like it change it. If you can't change it, leave.

So what's this "prefer to ignore their own responsibility for the choices they made and their own lapses" bit then? How does that work since any 'choice' was in fact a matter of church diktat?

The choice was to leave. The choice was to quit. Which, assuming you are probably an Ex-Scientologist because this is a discussion board for Ex-Scientologists, you eventually did anyway.

Listen, I'm not without sympathy and empathy for people who faced, and continue to face, very hard decisions re: Scientology membership. The threat of family disconnection. Second and third generation Scientologists who literally grew up in the Church, didn't have an real education, didn't know anything different. Sea Orgers who stayed far to long, and then got old and faced the prospect of leaving with no family, friends, education or job skills. (Of course, other Sea Orgers did leave earlier....)

And yes, I know the stories of people held physically against their will.

But you know what? For most of us there was no physical restraint. No barbed wire. We weren't held in SP hall against our will.

Many, and I suspect most, did not face family disconnection.

You know why I stayed as long as I did? Because I was weak. Because I was lonely. Because of my own personal weaknesses and demons. Because I was afraid -- not of Scientology, but what lay outside without Scientology. Period.

You know what drives me nuts about this board sometimes? Very few take any responsibility for that they did. Very few take any responsibility for their decision to stay as long as they did. Many (including me), if not most, were just such, such poor victims. We were "brainwashed."

KSW#1 made us do what we did. KSW#1 made us stay. We had no choice. Or we would be sent to ethics!

Yeah, right.

Boo hoo.

 

[Veda]

It's not quite that simple. It's called a trap for a reason. It's misleading. It's sugar coated. My introduction to Scientology came by watching a bright glowingly cheerful and refreshingly direct John McMaster on a TV show, years before I ever walked into a Scientology org. Then, finally, I started listening to musical groups such as Peter, Paul, and Mary, and others, and also The Incredible String Band. While attending an Incredible String Band concert, I was handed a "Scientology ticket," and the next week, after attending a lecture by Alan Watts on Zen, I went to the Org with the ticket, and saw a Scientology film with Stephen Boyd (the actor). It was very low key. I went back a few times in the coming months and bought a bunch of books.

I spent the summer reading all the books, and then, the next summer, went to the Org and did the Communications Course (took 2 days, cost $15). Later, I became an 'auditor'.

Although I never joined staff or the Sea Org, I did think about it, yet others I knew did join staff or the Sea Org, and one even went to prison for his involvement in Snow White-related GO activities.

All of these people were subjected to Scientology's use of good people to create a false impression, to Scientology's systematic use of fraud, and its use of deceptive gradients.

I wasn't harmed, yet many were, and continue to be; and the fraud continues.

 

[Tiger Lily]

It's not quite that simple. It's called a trap for a reason. It's misleading. It's sugar coated. My introduction to Scientology came by watching a bright glowingly cheerful and refreshingly direct John McMaster on a TV show, years before I ever walked into a Scientology org. Then, finally, I started listening to musical groups such as Peter, Paul, and Mary, and others, and also The Incredible String Band. While attending an Incredible String Band concert, I was handed a "Scientology ticket," and the next week, after attending a lecture by Alan Watts on Zen, I went to the Org with the ticket, and saw a Scientology film with Stephen Boyd (the actor). It was very low key. I went back a few times in the coming months and bought a bunch of books.

I spent the summer reading all the books, and then, the next summer, went to the Org and did the Communications Course (took 2 days, cost $15). Later, I became an 'auditor'.

Although I never joined staff or the Sea Org, I did think about it, yet others I knew did join staff or the Sea Org, and one even went to prison for his involvement in Snow White-related GO activities.

All of these people were subjected to Scientology's use of good people to create a false impression, to Scientology's systematic use of fraud, and its use of deceptive gradients.

I wasn't harmed, yet many were, and continue to be; and the fraud continues.

Veda, what a different recruitment style then than now!

One of the biggest traps I find in Scientology is just what I bolded above. Because the people who are recruiting you have bought in completely. Their sense of purpose has been appealed to and they really truly believe they are doing something good for you. So they are very believable because they are telling you the truth as they know it.. . . .it doesn't trigger your internal "BS meter" the way many scams do.

-TL

 

[Voltaire's Child]

There are an infinite number of discussions and diversions on the subject of Hubbard and his claims for Clear and Operating Thetan.

On can endlessly speculate, pontificate and engage in sophistry.

But, one enduring truth remains.

He lied.

He never created a Clear. Not one. No one. Period.

He never brought anyone, himself included, to the mythical state of Operating thetan. Not one. No one. Period.

All pendantic debates are meaningless after the above facts are realized.

Sure, his efforts might have resulted in people saying they "felt better" but that is likewise the province of health clubs, yoga, pilates, Jenny Craig, Deepak Chopra, bible studies, meditation, prayer, exercise, aerobics, camping, sports, et al, ad infinitum. No one in those endeavors has transcended the human condition. They ARE the human condition.

You left out "psychology" and "psychiatric treatment".

 

[Voltaire's Child]

You'd "wind up in ethics pretty damn fast?" So what?

"What other choice did they have?" How about say, "You know what, this is bullshit." Then walk out the door and never come back.

I recall years ago I was whining to a friend about a bad relationship with a nutty girlfriend. His response? "Is anyone holding a gun to your head?" "No." End of discussion. If you don't like it change it. If you can't change it, leave.

The choice was to leave. The choice was to quit. Which, assuming you are probably an Ex-Scientologist because this is a discussion board for Ex-Scientologists, you eventually did anyway.

Listen, I'm not without sympathy and empathy for people who faced, and continue to face, very hard decisions re: Scientology membership. The threat of family disconnection. Second and third generation Scientologists who literally grew up in the Church, didn't have an real education, didn't know anything different. Sea Orgers who stayed far to long, and then got old and faced the prospect of leaving with no family, friends, education or job skills. (Of course, other Sea Orgers did leave earlier....)

And yes, I know the stories of people held physically against their will.

But you know what? For most of us there was no physical restraint. No barbed wire. We weren't held in SP hall against our will.

Many, and I suspect most, did not face family disconnection.

You know why I stayed as long as I did? Because I was weak. Because I was lonely. Because of my own personal weaknesses and demons. Because I was afraid -- not of Scientology, but what lay outside without Scientology. Period.

You know what drives me nuts about this board sometimes? Very few take any responsibility for that they did. Very few take any responsibility for their decision to stay as long as they did. Many (including me), if not most, were just such, such poor victims. We were "brainwashed."

KSW#1 made us do what we did. KSW#1 made us stay. We had no choice. Or we would be sent to ethics!

Yeah, right.

Boo hoo.

I agree. I think that some exes blame the cult for what they themselves did and wanted to do. Some out of weakness, as you describe, and some because they flat out wanted to do whatever it was that they were doing in CofS.

Hubbard talked about "Responsible for condition" cases. I saw them in CofS- in fact, it kind of fostered that even though it wasn't supposed to. "I can't talk to so and so or do this or that, it might make me PTS." - that's a gem I saw often. And some people who've left the cult still act the same way. Such as those who commentary about how if peole come to this board and say they like Scn or something, that those people are harming the rest of the board. No, that's "responsible for condition". (and people wonder why I still find some value in Scn concepts! LOL!)

Membership in any cult or any toxic organization is unhealthy. It's stressful. It can cause serious tragedy or minor upset- depending on how deeply one gets immersed into it. There is no excuse for the things the cult does and had done to people. But, as you say, many of us had no barbed wire or RPFs or Halls or anything else. We had some pressure and indoctrination, sure. So then it comes down to other reasons we had for staying, some of which weren't good or sensible reasons- and others of which might have been but were relying on information that was being withheld from us that we then had to go and get ourselves.