Scientology 101

... I agree, promoting the idiocy of the details of the OT III materials can help warn people away from the general dangers of Scientology. That is true. I say go for it. But, in a purely technical sense, it just isn't that integral to the whole scam.

That is my opinion. You are entitled to yours. ...

I find it is typically sufficient to point out the following ....

1. The Co$ is a dangerous and abusive cult with an ample history of abusing members & non-members alike.

2. L. Ron Hubbard was a tremendously conflicted and troubled individual who intentionally inter-mixed self-serving doctrines among the materials of scientology for his direct personal benefit.

3. Whereas scientology auditing practices themselves have much to offer, the promises seemingly made by hubbard and the church are marketing hype and can not be taken as literally true.

4. Any benefits which may derive from an individual's practice of scientology result from the application of the principles laid out on the "lower bridge".

5. The "upper bridge" as delivered by the Co$ largely reflect the obsessive fixations of l. ron hubbard and his own insistence that what he believed to be true was necessarily true for all others. Not only is that prima facie absurd, it is a direct violation of scientology fundamental principles.

6. To the extent a particular individual might actually benefit from running the specific processes involved of the "upper bridge" it has nothing to do with hubbard's explanation of the levels or the "need" to do them.


These statements all have the benefit of being truthful and rationally defensible in dispute. Moreover, I've rarely had to go beyond statement #1 above in cautioning others about potential abuses. Few people will willfully choose to associate themselves with a crazy and abusive cult. Of course, there will always be some.


Mark A. Baker
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
No I am not kidding.

When I first got involved in Scientology, right up until I opened the OT III pack quite a few years later, I NEVER heard the words "Xenu", "BT", or Incident One and Two. What I did hear were VAGUE descriptions, lots of exaggerated hype, and endless push to "do the OT levels". We were played RJ 67 over and over, where Hubbard talked about "cracking the Wall of Fire". He NEVER gave any specifics, and kept it general - a catastrophe 75 million years ago, the cause of the 4th Dynamic Engram that still greatly affects us today, the Non-Interference Zone where you are urged to believe that it is truly DANGEROUS for you to NOT get through OT III, and on and on and on . . .

You make my point. Scientology is all about Xenu and preparing innocents for exposure to it. Telling people about Xenu prior to any of the Scientology "brainwashing" - as defined by L Ron Hubbard - and they are highly unlikely to ever be subject to it. Easy peasy - not even five minutes work.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
And all together a contention which is factually incorrect.

Maybe in Bakerology, but we're talking about Scientology here. You know, that "religion" which has as its central core the belief that humanity is at risk unless we all learn to duplicate the Xenu (who never existed) story to the discombobulated spiritual residue of aliens (who never existed) brought to Teegeeack and blown up near volcanoes (which didn't exist) 75 million years ago as part of a solution to a galactic population problem. That's the whole point of Scientology. That's why people have to clear engrams (which don't exist) from their reactive mind (which doesn't exist). Failure to make progress in this direction is, according to L Ron Hubbard, a sign of insanity and, towards the latter stages, a highly dangerous thing. Would you like DOX on this?

Disappointing to see you revert to . . .

Scientology 101: in the face of undeniable facts and irrefutable logic, apply ad homs

. . . and you were doing so well too. Really, Bakes, you should put down the hypno-cans before the damage becomes permanent. Please, for your own sake.
 
Last edited:

Lone Star

Crusader
Maybe in Bakerology, but we're talking about Scientology here. You know, that "religion" which has as its central core the belief that humanity is at risk unless we all learn to duplicate the Xenu (who never existed) story to the discombobulated spiritual residue of aliens (who never existed) brought to Teegeeack and blown up near volcanoes (which didn't exist) 75 million years ago as part of a solution to a galactic population problem.

Disappointing to see you revert to . . .



. . . and you were doing so well too. Really, Bakes, you should put down the hypno-cans before the damage becomes permanent. Please, for your own sake.

Your "irrefutable logic" is oxymoronic. You accusing anyone of ad hom is the epitome of hypocrisy.

The sad thing is that you really believe you're clever. I think sophistry is more what you offer.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Your "irrefutable logic" is oxymoronic. You accusing anyone of ad hom is the epitome of hypocrisy.

The sad thing is that you really believe you're clever. I think sophistry is more what you offer.

You could always prove my logic wrong or, even better, provide DOX to refute it. Instead, I see you have joined the Bakerology School of Wordclowning where Scientology 101 is obviously a first semester compulsory paper.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Your "irrefutable logic" is oxymoronic. You accusing anyone of ad hom is the epitome of hypocrisy.

The sad thing is that you really believe you're clever. I think sophistry is more what you offer.


:omg:

Lol, anyone who can nonchalantly toss the word 'discombobulated' around is alright with me (that and the fact that he can and does back up his statements with good old fashioned dox).



:biggrin:
 

Gadfly

Crusader
To tell a "raw" person the FACTS of Xenu and the whole OT III catastrophe scenario is relaying EXACTLY "the truth".

Without exaggeration, without lying, without adding anything, there is no doubt that such a story might very well act to help someone lose their interest in entering the Church of Scientology.

To me, as I see it, THAT can ONLY be a "good thing".

So, while I think the OT III stuff is fairly meaningless in the big picture of control in Scientology, honestly communicating the details about OT III is an excellent way to warn people AWAY from the cult. Relaying the details of that is a FAST and EASY way to "get the job done".

In a certain sense, instead of spending 5 hours trying to inform the person of all the many dangerous and nasty aspects of Scientology, just tell "an acceptable truth"!

The truth of Xenu! Sure, it isn't the "whole truth", but it may often be enough for the person to never walk into any Church of Scientology. THAT can ONLY be a good thing.

Now Mark Baker, if you want to argue THAT, then you have lost me. I know the Church of Scientology is bad news. You yourself know that it is bad news. The only people who think that it is not bad news are over-indoctrinated True Believers. I am not talking about lying, or misrepresenting the truth in any way. I am not talking about "lying to somebody to save them from some personal subjective evil". You yourself recently said in a thread that "truth is what matters".

This is NOT "willing to lie blatantly in order to save others, from your own perspective that is." It involves ONLY relaying the TRUTH. I AM willing to TELL THE TRUTH to SAVE OTHERS, from my own perspective that is! I feel no guilt or shame in that. :happydance:

There is no doubt that a BIG REASON why Hubbard made OT III data secret, is because if anyone saw it too early, they would turn around and run (laughing). A person needs to be "setup" for the Advanced Levels - and I don't mean "setup" as in auditing, but setup for the next big phase of the con. A person really does need to be gradiently brought up to a high level of gullibility to accept OT III. Various control factors in Scientology work to set the person up for that. I find it funny that Hubbard actually calls all the preliminary actions "setups". He tells you right to your face - I am setting you up! Suckers!!!!!!!

I say spread the Xenu story far and wide, because it provides the BEST bang for the buck to keep people away from the Church of Scientology and to make it the laughing joke that it is.
 
Hi Mark,

Genuine question ...

Had you known about Uncle Xenu prior to entering scientology ... would you still have joined, or not?

:)

Frankly, hard to say. :hmm:

It is certainly a looney tunes story as far as it goes. I was pretty uptight back then. It certainly would not have given me "warm & fuzzies". As personally conservative as I am, I am a great deal "looser" now. I have been since early on in my auditing. Still, I had a specific reason for giving scientology a try. What attracted me was the general description in DMSMH of auditing practice as a way of essentially "deprogramming" fixed ideas & considerations.

That idea of eliminating fixed ideas and associated considerations was very important to me as I already was familiar with similar concepts from Buddhist and Taoist philosophy. Accordingly, I was very interested in giving the auditing a try to see just how useful it might be in that regard. The fact that it was a "money back guarantee" on the services also made me far more willing to give it a shot. :read:

After a brief period doing the Comm Course as a prep for auditing I went straight to Life Repair auditing from which I had major positive benefit, far beyond anything I imagined might happen. That, for me, served to prove the workability of the general approach, although whether specific aspects of scientology were optimal remained very much in doubt. Other auditing varied in degree of "bite" but stayed true to the overall trend of Life Repair; i.e. some hours of ho hum typically followed by a significant personal insight or other breakthrough. :runaround:

My disagreements with the Co$ have always been principally with how the organization is run and the overemphasis on the role played by hubbard. While "in" my view was one of working to improve the process of delivery organizationally. I was generally aware of the "cult" reputation when I went in, although that wasn't as explicit or well publicized as it has become since. So I was already "on the lookout", as it were, for anything shady or coercive. When I realized that senior management wasn't really interested in improving conditions for the staff and membership I left. :runaway:

With regard the tech, I view it as open to improvement but essentially "workable" as given. Several improvements have been made over the years by various individuals (including some to whom you've been known to "give a hard time" :coolwink:). I'm glad to see any one benefiting from the application of either scientology or similar techniques.

My view is that focus on the xenu story itself ignores what, if anything, is actually being addressed on the levels themselves. Of course, the significance widely attributed to xenu is not unexpected given the weight that hubbard gave to the story and the importance of the "mystery sandwich" created in the church to enhance marketing. Also, it's a crazy story and easy to use for purposes of discrediting hubbard & the cult. :)

Still, xenu really isn't an important aspect of doing the levels themselves despite the many reports to the contrary. Xenu is only a problem to the extent a person believes in him. Clearly for hubbard, he was a problem. For me? Not so much. :)


Mark A. Baker
 

Lone Star

Crusader
You could always prove my logic wrong or, even better, provide DOX to refute it. Instead, I see you have joined the Bakerology School of Wordclowning where Scientology 101 is obviously a first semester compulsory paper.

DOX to refute what? Your brilliance? You do that quite well yourself.

A monkey can be trained to dox the OT3 material over and over again. Not impressed. In fact it's boring. You've read some books on the subject and you're a master of google. Wow! That's awesome!

That "wordclowning" doc was also impressive. I thought it described you very well.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
DOX to refute what? Your brilliance? You do that quite well yourself.

A monkey can be trained to dox the OT3 material over and over again. Not impressed. In fact it's boring. You've read some books on the subject and you're a master of google. Wow! That's awesome!

That "wordclowning" doc was also impressive. I thought it described you very well.

And your abuse contributes to this topic how, exactly? Going for another derail are you? Trying to make the thread unreadable? Tsk tsk.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Frankly, hard to say. :hmm:

It is certainly a looney tunes story as far as it goes. I was pretty uptight back then. It certainly would not have given me "warm & fuzzies". As personally conservative as I am, I am a great deal "looser" now. I have been since early on in my auditing. Still, I had a specific reason for giving scientology a try. What attracted me was the general description in DMSMH of auditing practice as a way of essentially "deprogramming" fixed ideas & considerations.

That idea of eliminating fixed ideas and associated considerations was very important to me as I already was familiar with similar concepts from Buddhist and Taoist philosophy. Accordingly, I was very interested in giving the auditing a try to see just how useful it might be in that regard. The fact that it was a "money back guarantee" on the services also made me far more willing to give it a shot. :read:

After a brief period doing the Comm Course as a prep for auditing I went straight to Life Repair auditing from which I had major positive benefit, far beyond anything I imagined might happen. That, for me, served to prove the workability of the general approach, although whether specific aspects of scientology were optimal remained very much in doubt. Other auditing varied in degree of "bite" but stayed true to the overall trend of Life Repair; i.e. some hours of ho hum typically followed by a significant personal insight or other breakthrough. :runaround:

My disagreements with the Co$ have always been principally with how the organization is run and the overemphasis on the role played by hubbard. While "in" my view was one of working to improve the process of delivery organizationally. I was generally aware of the "cult" reputation when I went in, although that wasn't as explicit or well publicized as it has become since. So I was already "on the lookout", as it were, for anything shady or coercive. When I realized that senior management wasn't really interested in improving conditions for the staff and membership I left. :runaway:

With regard the tech, I view it as open to improvement but essentially "workable" as given. Several improvements have been made over the years by various individuals (including some to whom you've been known to "give a hard time" :coolwink:). I'm glad to see any one benefiting from the application of either scientology or similar techniques.

My view is that focus on the xenu story itself ignores what, if anything, is actually being addressed on the levels themselves. Of course, the significance widely attributed to xenu is not unexpected given the weight that hubbard gave to the story and the importance of the "mystery sandwich" created in the church to enhance marketing. Also, it's a crazy story and easy to use for purposes of discrediting hubbard & the cult. :)

Still, xenu really isn't an important aspect of doing the levels themselves despite the many reports to the contrary. Xenu is only a problem to the extent a person believes in him. Clearly for hubbard, he was a problem. For me? Not so much. :)


Mark A. Baker


As always I appreciate your honesty ... it seems to me that the people (here) that are still believers in the tech (almost always that below OT3) were simply never as 'sucked in' in the first place as many others were. Carmelo is another example of that ... he whose name must not be mentioned who I may have (on occasion) given a slightly hard time to (lol) is in a different category (IMO) purely because of his inclination to retain the cultic aspects of scientology (many and various) and his (to be fair ... past) promotion of it here.

Overall I do see where you're coming from and if you got (and still get) something positive from it then I'm happy for you.

:yes:
 
... The truth of Xenu! Sure, it isn't the "whole truth", but it may often be enough for the person to never walk into any Church of Scientology. THAT can ONLY be a good thing.

Now Mark Baker, if you want to argue THAT, then you have lost me. ...

Gee, and I wasn't aware that I "had" you. :shock:

Personally, I'll stick with: "Co$ is a dangerous & abusive cult". It's simple, straight to the point, and factual. :thumbsup:

I see the truth of "xenu" as far more complex than yourself being as it is more in the character of hubbard's justification for why the "upper levels" are deemed necessary rather than being the "upper levels" in themselves. To fully address the topic of "xenu" generally devolves into a lengthy disscussion on why hubbard thought it was important and of what the "upper levels" actually consist. Saying that the "upper levels" consist of "xenu" may be in some sense "effective", but it is not an accurate description.

And yes, when asked about the "upper levels" I do have that discussion too. Usually in far more gory detail than the other person was expecting. :bwahaha:

But I do like to portray context accurately. I think that is important. :)

Besides, I certainly don't agree with hubbard that the "upper levels" are "necessary", because of xenu or for any other reason. They can be of interest to some. But from my view they shouldn't be approached unless a person has an interest in addressing the subject material, and I don't mean xenu. Hence, I don't have much of a dog in the fight.


Mark A. Baker
 

Lone Star

Crusader
And your abuse contributes to this topic how, exactly? Going for another derail are you? Trying to make the thread unreadable? Tsk tsk.

How did your earlier abusive reply to another poster contribute anything positive to this thread? How does implying that someone who disagrees with you is brainwashed contribute anything?

Don't like this "abuse" do you? Look in the mirror.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
How did your earlier abusive reply to another poster contribute anything positive to this thread? How does implying that someone who disagrees with you is brainwashed contribute anything?

h8El3.gif
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Personally, I'll stick with: "Co$ is a dangerous & abusive cult". It's simple, straight to the point, and factual. :thumbsup:

I see the truth of "xenu" as far more complex than yourself . . . .

Mark A. Baker

I simply mean the story. Just take the OT III story, in LRH's handwriting and read it to a person. That would take, what? 3-5 minutes?

Just the facts - just as LRH wrote it himself. 75 million years ago, the volcanoes, the atomic explosions, the 47 days of implanting, the sticky strip that grabbed a hold of each thetan, how they were squashed together, how they were transported to Earth in DC-8s (that one ALWAYS cracks me up), and so forth. Explain HOW MUCH it costs, HOW MANY YEARS any person must address such things (included in OT III through OT VII), and explain how this is a FACTUAL secret doctrine of the Church of Scientology. I don't remember, were the bodies transported in Ice Cubes or was that some other implant from History of Man? :hysterical:

Or, send them to read what is on Wikipedia:

OT III and Xenu

It need not be "complex" at all.

Or, send them to the view:

New OT III Checksheet.
 
I simply mean the story. Just take the OT III story, in LRH's handwriting and read it to a person. That would take, what? 3-5 minutes? ...

Lacks context. Never gonna win a Pulitzer. :no:

Dangerous & Abusive Cult: takes 5 seconds, supplies its own complete context, and if supporting evidence is required ... "google is your friend". :)

Still, different strokes for different folks.


Mark A. Baker
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Lacks context. Never gonna win a Pulitzer. :no:

Dangerous & Abusive Cult: takes 5 seconds, supplies its own complete context, and if supporting evidence is required ... "google is your friend". :)

Still, different strokes for different folks.

Mark A. Baker

As another poster mentioned, different people have different buttons on what would act to effectively discourage him or her away from the cult.

So, since I pay attention to the person sitting in front of me, I would gauge what they need to hear, and adjust the content of my communication accordingly.

Also, looking back over the past 25 years, I have NEVER had anyone ask me about Scientology at all. The situation has never arisen where I needed to tell anyone anything at all! :confused2:

So, this "what would you tell a wog about Scientology to keep them away from the C of S" is largely theoretical.

Today with the Internet, people have a FAR better chance of getting the "big picture" there, than by asking me or you about it in person.
 
Top