Miscavige, Hubbard, Jesus and The Golden Age of Tech

Isene

Patron with Honors
From the blog post: http://isene.me/2013/11/17/scientology-present-future/
The blog post includes relevant links and graphics. Here's the text:


While the world of Scientology is buzzing with excitement over the new monumentalt milestone releases that is bound to shake the very foundations of this universe, the outside world runs its course unaffected.

Most people will never know about “Super Power” or “The Golden Age of Tech, phase II”. But some are negatively excited and are abuzz with carping criticism of Miscavige and his church. And I managed to muster some interest resulting in a few reflections.

Most have long since discovered that Scientology is far from the world’s fastest growing religion, perhaps it’s even the fastest shrinking religion. If you still believe that Scientology truly is the Only Hope of Mankind, then the only logical target for why the world is not embracing the subject is its leader, David Miscavige. True believers would never question Hubbard or Scientology itself, and instead focus almost exclusively on Miscavige as the True Culprit. He must be a power-hungry, greedy and evil psychopath to be able to halt the obvious expansion and Scientology’s natural take-over as the world’s One True Philosophy. If you don’t believe that Scientology is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then there is less reason to blame only him. Perhaps he is just faced with an impossible task of making a flawed philosophy right by any and all means.

Earlier, I reflected on the creative genius of David Miscavige. I also said I think he is a true believer. I see him being on a relentless quest of making Scientology right. He turns every stone, tries fixing every minor crease and splits every possible hair in order to ensure that Scientology may eventually deliver what Hubbard promised. But what if it never can? I don’t think Miscavige would ever openly utter such a doubt. But I think that his quest does reflect such an inner doubt in himself. Just like I think Hubbard devised Scientology to fix himself, I think Miscavige is working hard to fix his own deeper doubt. Just like Jesus may have tried to sell the world on concepts that he himself finally admitted he doubted at the end.

Maybe most peddlers of philosophy try their best to fix themselves and often attempts to convince others in order to fix their own doubts. Maybe. And the followers are eager buyers as they would want their doubts handled as well. Most people like certainty and are willing takers of anything that can fix their fear, uncertainty or doubt.

It seems ironic that Scientologists outside of the church spend time and effort to justify or make Hubbard’s philosophy right, all the while they criticize Miscavige so harshly – a man that are even more adamant in trying his best to fix the subject. But because he is more intensely active and has set himself up as the sole power, the dictator of Scientology, his mistakes are far better scrutinized.

Regardless of the transient buzz and hoopla – when the dust settles and the lack of OT powers and expansion is again starting to show, I think Miscavige is out of stuff to fix – and the naked emperor will be clearly on display. And then the implosion will become a spectacle to behold. And some will regret they didn’t get busy making a better bridge. But fear not, the evolution of Mankind will find increasingly more effective answers to whatever. As long as we help nudge it ever so slightly in the right direction.
 

Gib

Crusader
snip

Earlier, I reflected on the creative genius of David Miscavige. I also said I think he is a true believer. I see him being on a relentless quest of making Scientology right. He turns every stone, tries fixing every minor crease and splits every possible hair in order to ensure that Scientology may eventually deliver what Hubbard promised. But what if it never can? I don’t think Miscavige would ever openly utter such a doubt. But I think that his quest does reflect such an inner doubt in himself. Just like I think Hubbard devised Scientology to fix himself, I think Miscavige is working hard to fix his own deeper doubt. Just like Jesus may have tried to sell the world on concepts that he himself finally admitted he doubted at the end.



It seems ironic that Scientologists outside of the church spend time and effort to justify or make Hubbard’s philosophy right, all the while they criticize Miscavige so harshly – a man that are even more adamant in trying his best to fix the subject. But because he is more intensely active and has set himself up as the sole power, the dictator of Scientology, his mistakes are far better scrutinized.

snip

I'll rely to you on one of your comments in your blog.

Here's my replay. DM is a nut, a kook.

Lest we forget that little shit imprisoned his top Int Management people and called them all SP's. Well, why didn't that fuk then apply his wonderous scientology technology and off load them.

Why did that little fuk order his secretary to break Debbie Cook's finger.

Why did that little fuk turn all staff into fanatical Hard Sell idiots overnight during the Basics release.

Why did that little fuk put razor fences around his castle at the base in Hemet.

on and on and on.

Jesus christ already, that guy is a kook. Who the fuk are you kidding Geir? He even wanted to turn you into a slave as ED of your homeland org.


Aeolus
2013-11-18 @ 13:23
Geir, I can’t speak for anyone else regarding the “need to blame” and you could be right about that. However, I’m not aware of a single action by Miscavige, ever, that has actually facilitated his followers’ case gain or the flourishing of Scientology itself, but many, many that are quite the opposite. Since he appears otherwise to be an intelligent and strong personality, I conclude that his consistent negative results are quite deliberate.

REPLY

  • 1fc2e0a38a839f100109fe9b84e79fef
    Geir Isene

    2013-11-18 @ 15:17
    I think it is common practice in polarized subjects such as Scientology to fall prey to serious confirmation bias. Just like people inside will praise him as the second coming, people on the outside will see him as Satan incarnated. But – as most people, he is a mixed bag. And quite understandable according to my views. But to write him off as a textbook sociopath is way too simplistic – and label everything he has done as bad or wrong is… well, wrong. Like his initiative toward the IRS that led to tax exemption, or fix faulty LRH texts – from commas to removing the insane Satanic issue from OT 8. He has done plenty to support the view that he is a true believer struggling with a faulty philosophy and trying to rectify it by any and all means.





 
I'll rely to you on one of your comments in your blog.

Here's my replay. DM is a nut, a kook.

Lest we forget that little shit imprisoned his top Int Management people and called them all SP's. Well, why didn't that fuk then apply his wonderous scientology technology and off load them.

Why did that little fuk order his secretary to break Debbie Cook's finger.

Why did that little fuk turn all staff into fanatical Hard Sell idiots overnight during the Basics release.

Why did that little fuk put razor fences around his castle at the base in Hemet.

on and on and on.

Jesus christ already, that guy is a kook. Who the fuk are you kidding Geir? He even wanted to turn you into a slave as ED of your homeland org.


Aeolus
2013-11-18 @ 13:23
Geir, I can’t speak for anyone else regarding the “need to blame” and you could be right about that. However, I’m not aware of a single action by Miscavige, ever, that has actually facilitated his followers’ case gain or the flourishing of Scientology itself, but many, many that are quite the opposite. Since he appears otherwise to be an intelligent and strong personality, I conclude that his consistent negative results are quite deliberate.

REPLY

  • 1fc2e0a38a839f100109fe9b84e79fef
    Geir Isene

    2013-11-18 @ 15:17
    I think it is common practice in polarized subjects such as Scientology to fall prey to serious confirmation bias. Just like people inside will praise him as the second coming, people on the outside will see him as Satan incarnated. But – as most people, he is a mixed bag. And quite understandable according to my views. But to write him off as a textbook sociopath is way too simplistic – and label everything he has done as bad or wrong is… well, wrong. Like his initiative toward the IRS that led to tax exemption, or fix faulty LRH texts – from commas to removing the insane Satanic issue from OT 8. He has done plenty to support the view that he is a true believer struggling with a faulty philosophy and trying to rectify it by any and all means.



I think all this is because he was a ninth grade drop out from American schools who is a true believer and leader of a UFO science fiction cult.

If he had made it to college and studied existentialism before he dropped out it probably would be a suicide cult.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
I think all this is because he was a ninth grade drop out from American schools who is a true believer and leader of a UFO science fiction cult.

I don't understand why you think DM a true believer given that by all accounts he has not done or received any auditing in decades. Hubbard in that regard strikes me as more a true believer insofar as he drank his own cool-aide and was auditing himself and receiving auditing up to his death. DM, by contrast, strikes me as a cynic who doesn't 'believe' per se, 'knows its all BS', but because he was brought up in Scientology and has been entrenched in it all his adult life, probably does not and could not recognize how much his own way of thinking has been warped and shaped by Hubbard. Admittedly, this is just my impression from the outside as a never-in who has only read third hand accounts… but what am I missing? Wouldn't a true believer be on the cans?
 

Techless

Patron Meritorious
I totally understand what Isene's saying and can agree on - and if not all regarding DM being insane' and but still a 'true believer'. or sane and believer.

May we need to differentiate here if one can "be insane and be a true believer"?

I'd think you have to be insane to believe it all makes perfect sense. Then there can be different ideas of just: what is a 'true believer' really infer?

Believing a known un-workable tech OR believing in a believed to be true tech?

This is where it can get all tangled...and doesn't really matter too much cause if he changes any of these 'ways' - it's still a huge dogpile of KaKa.

perhaps if any responses to clarify this I may post another to explain it another way...I'm sleepy now an possibly making no sense what-so-ever!!!

Nitey all.
 
I don't understand why you think DM a true believer given that by all accounts he has not done or received any auditing in decades. Hubbard in that regard strikes me as more a true believer insofar as he drank his own cool-aide and was auditing himself and receiving auditing up to his death. DM, by contrast, strikes me as a cynic who doesn't 'believe' per se, 'knows its all BS', but because he was brought up in Scientology and has been entrenched in it all his adult life, probably does not and could not recognize how much his own way of thinking has been warped and shaped by Hubbard. Admittedly, this is just my impression from the outside as a never-in who has only read third hand accounts… but what am I missing? Wouldn't a true believer be on the cans?

I was a true believer and I couldn't stand auditing myself.

I was still a true believer even though I didn't get any auditing or training in twenty years.

I don't think DM has a cynical attitude about the Tech, only an attitude of superiority and a low opinion of others in general.

I suspect Miscavige has a "saving Scientology from the lower downs" attitude.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Miscavige is the truest True Believer there ever was, just ask him! He might not believe what the Rank and File believe exactly but he believes in his own superior understanding of what Hubbard began.
 
I think the basic paradigm of Scientology is the problem. That being, the tech is 100% workable if applied correctly. Miscavage tweaks it here and there, but he hasn't confronted what he needs to do: take each part of the tech and put it to the test, find out what works and ditch the rest. I agree - he is a true believer. Sure, he has a mean streak, which makes him a ruthless leader. Being blinded by the paradigm, he is doing exactly what he tried to cure with the Golden age of tech - the blind is leading the blind.

Being blind to the cause of the lack of results - he flails away, not seeing his forward movement is chained to Hubbard's shortcomings.

An out Qual div is what is wrong with Scientology - it can't correct itself. So it commits the very sin it rails against and can't or won't fix - it is being upbraided for lack of results.

Mimsey
 

MostlyLurker

Patron Meritorious
People in CoS are stupid. Unaware. Living in a bubble. They are keept stupid on purpose with the use of false promises and lies. They are forbidden to look outside of the bubble because looking would make them aware of what's going on. I don't think anybody who has the liberty to look around and the knowledge of the limitations of Scn can remain in the bubble for so long. If people are free they find the truth, is only when they are being keept trapped by someone on purpose that they become and remain stupid. DM certainly took over the hat from LRH of keeping people stupid, but I don't believe for a minute that he hasn't himself escaped hubbard cage.

Also, what would do somebody with DM powers if he would believe the tech really frees people and give them supernatural OT powers? Wouldn't happly the tech to himself and others? Wouldn't push for delivery?

Also, what would do somebody with DM powers if he would believe that Scn is really smoke, an illusion, a state of suggestion? Wouldn't he be pushing the illusion with fake events, special effects, lies and prevent people from realizing the limits of the tech maybe by reduce it's delivery, making it dangerous to deliver without the proper authorizations, GAT, GATII, expensive meters, expensive books, years of training and punishment?


No way. Miscavige is a con evil man and he knows it.
 
Last edited:
I was a true believer and I couldn't stand auditing myself.

I was still a true believer even though I didn't get any auditing or training in twenty years.

I don't think DM has a cynical attitude about the Tech, only an attitude of superiority and a low opinion of others in general.

I suspect Miscavige has a "saving Scientology from the lower downs" attitude.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Huh. I guess I really don't get it. How could you have been such a true believer and yet not bothered to pursue auditing and training? Sorry if this is all old hat and you have discussed this in previous posts about your journey through. I have read that many of the SO are not highly trained, but I was under the impression that this was more of a bait and switch thing where people joining thought they would receive training for free as SO members only to find out that with all the work they were expected to do that getting trained was impossible. It never occurred to me that one could be a true believer and yet have no desire to follow, learn and apply the tech… or am I again missing something?
 
Huh. I guess I really don't get it. How could you have been such a true believer and yet not bothered to pursue auditing and training? Sorry if this is all old hat and you have discussed this in previous posts about your journey through. I have read that many of the SO are not highly trained, but I was under the impression that this was more of a bait and switch thing where people joining thought they would receive training for free as SO members only to find out that with all the work they were expected to do that getting trained was impossible. It never occurred to me that one could be a true believer and yet have no desire to follow, learn and apply the tech… or am I again missing something?

Well, I wasn't in the Sea Org, just org staff at FCDC.

I had dropped acid (LSD) about three times in the five days before I first walked into an org.

I came to the org to do the Comm course.

I came from another city so it was arranged that I stay at someone's apartment across the street from the org.

I was convinced of the workability of Scientology from doing TRs.

But what made me a true believer was that on the course I read "Evolution of a Science."

I read it straight through and I almost cried after reading it because I felt I found what I was looking for.

How sad is that!

I hadn't ever heard of auditing or the Bridge or OTs or whatever.

But I was asked if I wanted to join staff.

My first thought was "They want to hire me?" because I was a hippie with hair down over my shoulders.

But they hired me and as difficult and demanding as it was I actually enjoyed being on staff.

It was an adventure; and the more I learned about Scientology the more I thought it could save mankind.

But I didn't like auditing.

I did like learning but I didn't like the course room environment for myself.

I never did read all of the books, but I did like policy and made it to staff status three.

After I left staff I had no interest in auditing but I was still a believer that Scientology could help mankind.

The auditing and training I got after I left staff was paid for by my employer and I wouldn't have even done that except for the one course I wanted (the Data Series) but I knew I would lose my job if I didn't get the auditing.

So it would have been thirty years as a true believer without doing any services (except the ones my employed paid for and pressured me to do.

Then one day I read Plato.

And I realized that Scientology wasn't the answer and just like that I quit; as fast as I started.

On A to J checks whenever I was asked "Is there anyone in your environment antagonistic to you being a Scientologists?" I would answer, "Yes, other Scientologist."

I'm probably the only person declared open minded while still on staff.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Then one day I read Plato.

And I realized that Scientology wasn't the answer and just like that I quit; as fast as I started.

On A to J checks whenever I was asked "Is there anyone in your environment antagonistic to you being a Scientologists?" I would answer, "Yes, other Scientologist."

I'm probably the only person declared open minded while still on staff.

The Anabaptist Jacques

If you don't mind me asking, which of Plato's works and what about it in particular? As to the 'open minded' thing, I have always found the idea that anyone would consider that an insult quite jarring.
 
If you don't mind me asking, which of Plato's works and what about it in particular? As to the 'open minded' thing, I have always found the idea that anyone would consider that an insult quite jarring.

Well open minded in Scientology meant that you can't make up your mind or that you don't really want to be helped.

As far as Plato goes the first thing was the Allegory of the Cave from The Republic.

The idea that I had been looking at shadows added to the idea of what education is really about made me drop Scientology.

And then the next chapter about the divided lines.

The divided lines shaped my view of everything since.

So the work that made me instantly decide that I was done with Scientology was The Republic.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
I agree with those who doubt that DM is a true believer in the tech.

If he really did believe in it then why does he implement an Ideal Orgs strategy that is totally off-policy?

Also, look at the various out-tech and off-policy actions Debbie Cook mentioned in her email.

What about overts and withholds - lying to his public about stats and about being the "fastest-growing religion in the world"? Don't overts and withholds apply to Miscavige?

And if you really did believe in the tech and you were the head of the church and had access to the top tech people on the planet, free of charge, then why wouldn't you get yourself up the Bridge and become OT with all of the so-called "OT abilities" that are just there for the taking? I mean, wouldn't it be easier to run the CofS if you had OT abilities?

In my opinion, if you look at all of DM's actions I don't see how it's possible to conclude that he is a true believer in the tech. He, of all people, must know that Hubbard didn't have any special abilities and died a broken man so why would DM believe the tech had any use?

Makes no sense to me.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
If you don't mind me asking, which of Plato's works and what about it in particular? As to the 'open minded' thing, I have always found the idea that anyone would consider that an insult quite jarring.

It's a question of degree. If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw all sorts of garbage into it.

Hence, this board.
 
I agree with those who doubt that DM is a true believer in the tech.

If he really did believe in it then why does he implement an Ideal Orgs strategy that is totally off-policy?

Also, look at the various out-tech and off-policy actions Debbie Cook mentioned in her email.

What about overts and withholds - lying to his public about stats and about being the "fastest-growing religion in the world"? Don't overts and withholds apply to Miscavige?

And if you really did believe in the tech and you were the head of the church and had access to the top tech people on the planet, free of charge, then why wouldn't you get yourself up the Bridge and become OT with all of the so-called "OT abilities" that are just there for the taking? I mean, wouldn't it be easier to run the CofS if you had OT abilities?

In my opinion, if you look at all of DM's actions I don't see how it's possible to conclude that he is a true believer in the tech. He, of all people, must know that Hubbard didn't have any special abilities and died a broken man so why would DM believe the tech had any use?

Makes no sense to me.

He is a true believer in Scientology. He is not a C/S or auditor.

He can believe in the general without being particularly knowledgeable about the Tech.

I know I was.

Since I left FCDC, for decades they have had EDs who are not trained and received very little auditing.

I would go so far as to say this is common among many org exes.

Add to this the frustration that they are not getting results then it is natural for them to think their people must be sabotaging things.

And since they can't understand good tech from bad tech while they are running things they look for unusual reasons while things don't work, from editors to psychiatrists.

You see this in other religions too.

I know a lot of very devote Catholics who never heard of St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas and who actually understand very little about Catholicism.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
It's a question of degree. If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw all sorts of garbage into it.

Hence, this board.

I guess I assume a difference between open minded and empty minded:blush:. At any rate, I find the way in which Hubbard redefined this term fascinating. This redefinition of open mindedness is quite insidious. On the one hand, there is certainly something problematic about a Hamlet type figure who can never make up their mind. On the other hand, however, there is something problematic about the sort of person who can not even admit into their mind the thought that they could have been wrong. When I think open minded, I think of someone who of course thinks that they are right (otherwise, why would one think it at all) and yet would be willing to admit that they may be wrong. Hubbard's redefinition of this term allows for one to equate close-mindedness with the virtue of being willing to stand up for what one believes in. The irony is that standing up for what one believes in should be risky and should allow for others to point out why you are wrong. If you cannot allow for this possibility, then you have never stood for anything except bloody-mindedness.
 
Top