Scientology: hard and soft, tech and religion

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
It's a distinction without a difference. If Scientology isn't *all* of L. Ron Hubbard's turd sandwich, it's not Scientology. Some parts are runnier than others, but, it's all the same sandwich.

Zinj
 

Thrak

Gold Meritorious Patron
I think hard and soft does get the idea across. It was seeing a person who I'd known for a while come back from "Flag" that was the beginning of the end for me. She BECAME a scientologist. It was like everything she was before was practically gone and she was "the tech". Really kind of appalling.

I think though that many go through phases and at a point don't take it seriously and then maybe something happens for you to put more into it. You're always seeing that while there.

And many get in for much more realistic goals than the "ot" stuff. I had come from a pretty abusive background and wanted to release built up emotion etc. And as well, I wanted to expand my creativity being an artist. The "ot" stuff sounded hard to believe and was not what I was interested in but there were real examples from people I did respect who said that doing this stuff did help their career - Chick Corea, Beck. This whole mechanism is how they get in so many artists and celebrities.

And from what I've seen most of the celebrity scios would be considered on the soft side. They do a course, get some auditing, do a benefit concert, but don't really walk the walk.

But all the while there is that hard side that is there and they continually try to get you to become more and more extreme about it. And drinking that cool aid and taking it seriously is when you see the tragedies happen.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
"When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe -- never permit an "open-minded" approach. If they're going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they're aboard, and if they're aboard, they're here on the same terms as the rest of us -- win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. The finest organizations in history have been tough, dedicated organizations. Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It's a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the tigers survive -- and even they have a hard time. We'll survive because we are tough and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody properly he becomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to enforce, we don't make students into good Scientologists and that lets everybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she'll win and we'll all win. Humor her and we all die a little. The proper instruction attitude is, "You're here so you're a Scientologist. Now we're going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We'd rather have you dead than incapable."

There's no place for 'soft Scientology' in Scientology except as an appetizer.

Zinj
 

Terril park

Sponsor
'Fundamentalist Scientology' could certainly be a fair replacement for my term 'hard Scientology', though it brings the standard problem that 'fundamentalist' has an established meaning in the context of other religions, and it's a real question how well that established concept fits Scientology. Probably it fits fine, but I don't want to have to defend a side issue in case there are quibbles about how well it fits. Again, my concern is for the distinction, and not for any particular terminology.

I gave a live example of fundamentalism. The postulate sent out that the interviewer will die alone and in the dark etc, is classic fundamentalist
thinking, along the lines of the peers, who accept what could be said to
be twisted interpretations of LRH policy.

The real difference in " soft" and "hard" is the emphasis given towards the recipient. In the FZ there is no group to protect. Its a guerrilla movement of disparate individuals. Some in the FZ are somewhat fundamentalist in that they will follow LRH policy fairly literally. However, with for example ethics,
it would in general be used for the benefit of the client. Clients can of course vote with their feet. One might call this soft. :)

An example of the "hard" approach, a real life example, is someone who returned to the COS after a few years of, life entanglements, normal usual
human stuff like kids and so on, was ordered to have an HCO sec check, for reasons unknown. Oh!.....it was $ 8000 or so. This was NOT beneficial to the client who was stressed financially.

Lets say client centered equals soft, organisation centered equals hard.
And in the latter case it may just be for no reason other than the money!
 

AnonKat

Crusader
Hard relates to solid and soft to liquid. I had the thought that dogmas can act simular as MEST being rigid and unforgiving. Organizations have function but when function is lost it becomes a parasite.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Hard relates to solid and soft to liquid. I had the thought that dogmas can act simular as MEST being rigid and unforgiving. Organizations have function but when function is lost it becomes a parasite.

The 'function' of the Scientology organization is to take over the world. Yes, they call it 'saving the world' and 'Clearing the Planet', but, that has always been the function of the organization and the goal of the Philosophy since the inception of Scientology. Possibly 'Dianetics' might pass as a more individual bit of 'therapy'; but, Scientology has always had complete takeover as its stated aim.

Always.

The parasite aspires to be a predator and then, finally, *everything*.

Zinj
 

Thrak

Gold Meritorious Patron
"When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe -- never permit an "open-minded" approach. If they're going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they're aboard, and if they're aboard, they're here on the same terms as the rest of us -- win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. The finest organizations in history have been tough, dedicated organizations. Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It's a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the tigers survive -- and even they have a hard time. We'll survive because we are tough and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody properly he becomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to enforce, we don't make students into good Scientologists and that lets everybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she'll win and we'll all win. Humor her and we all die a little. The proper instruction attitude is, "You're here so you're a Scientologist. Now we're going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We'd rather have you dead than incapable."

There's no place for 'soft Scientology' in Scientology except as an appetizer.

Zinj

Yes but those are words on a piece of paper. You find many there that don't take it that seriously. But that document is required reading as the first page of every course and over the years you may actually begin to believe it, or not.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
A Question for "Independent Scientologists"

What might Hubbard's The Reactive Mind or BANK have to do with MICE?
 
Last edited:

Smilla

Ordinary Human
The 'function' of the Scientology organization is to take over the world. Yes, they call it 'saving the world' and 'Clearing the Planet', but, that has always been the function of the organization and the goal of the Philosophy since the inception of Scientology. Possibly 'Dianetics' might pass as a more individual bit of 'therapy'; but, Scientology has always had complete takeover as its stated aim.

Always.

The parasite aspires to be a predator and then, finally, *everything*.

Zinj
This is absolutely true. Scientology was designed in every detail with the intention of taking total control of the world. That is why it is the way it is. Read Hubbard - he doesn't hide it. Total control. Nothing less is acceptable in his view. Sure, the FZ has lesser ambitions, but the CofS and FZ drink from the same cup. That is why Scientology makes people crazy. Soft or hard, it's the same brew.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
A Question for "Independent Scientologists"

What might Hubbard's The Reactive Mind or BANK have to do with MICE?


Ralp-Slater-Hypnosis-1950.jpg



Hubbard said you had a bank that you must be rid of to SURVIVE.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Ralp-Slater-Hypnosis-1950.jpg



Hubbard said you had a bank that you must be rid of to SURVIVE.
It's a bogus solution to a bogus problem. Quite clever in a hateful kind of way. Thankfully word is getting around and people have been warned. It is the worlds fastest dying cult.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
This is absolutely true. Scientology was designed in every detail with the intention of taking total control of the world. That is why it is the way it is. Read Hubbard - he doesn't hide it. Total control. Nothing less is acceptable in his view.


That is also the problem with hypnosis...
You either have TOTAL CONTROL or you have NONE!!

----------------

Ralph Slater, incidentally, played Carnegie Hall 7 times in the late 40's. Hypnosis was BIG NEWS in the late 40's... seems strange to me how public awareness of the capabilities of HYPNOSIS faded out of the pubic mindset after the advent of DIANETICS and TELEVISION - in 1950...

In a 1943 article in LIFE MAGAZINE Ralph Slater claimed that the Nazis had all been hypnotized by Hitler's mastery of covert hypnotic speaking techniques... and claimed that he might be able to wake them up... here is that article: LIFE MAGAZINE

Scientologists think it "works" because they feel "relief" and less pain... it was a well known prior to 1050, that a person in a TRANCE feels NO PAIN...in fact the depth of trance is proportional to the lack of sensation in the body = a state Hubbard called "CLEAR".... which is also an insidious command word.. anything that merely masks symptoms - will delay a person getting medical treatment for the underlying cause of those symptoms.. hence the phrase "Scientology KILLS"...

For those of you who would like to read Ralph Slater's 1950 classic, I just finished scanning it, and I apologize for making the image quality too high, but this little 60 page book, is a 100 meg file HERE as a PDF. Enjoy! Exclusively for ESMB from Lermanet.com Exposing the CON

May we never be fooled again!
(as individuals in Scientology or as a nation)


The OT 8 Cognition "I mock up my own mice"
 

yon8008

Patron with Honors
You wouldn't/couldn't/don't/can't/won't know. Crawl back in your OSA-implant hole.

I'm not sure your intention/meaning with the first sentence unless you are expressing a desire for something to be 'not found out'.

As for the second: I've never been. But I won't be going there until I'm ready to shut it down with aesthetically stimulating rationality.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
I'm not sure your intention/meaning with the first sentence unless you are expressing a desire for something to be 'not found out'.

As for the second: I've never been. But I won't be going there until I'm ready to shut it down with aesthetically stimulating rationality.

I understand it :thumbsup: Have you got an MU?
 

yon8008

Patron with Honors
This is absolutely true. Scientology was designed in every detail with the intention of taking total control of the world. That is why it is the way it is. Read Hubbard - he doesn't hide it. Total control. Nothing less is acceptable in his view. Sure, the FZ has lesser ambitions, but the CofS and FZ drink from the same cup. That is why Scientology makes people crazy. Soft or hard, it's the same brew.

I'm all for any sane being putting in some control here. But remember that real control is not done with duress or violence or punishment. The best control is "Start Change Stop" through voluntary compliance. And voluntary compliance is achieved by communicating the following:
A) a vision that is beautiful enough to work towards &
B) a route/plan to achieve that vision which a significant number of people can accept and contribute to.

Positive control that achieves A & B on a voluntary basis is far better than chaos and compulsive stop.

LRH's hyperbolic sales pitch stimulates people in the direction of A.
Obama's hope and change was stimulation in the direction of A.
But Scientology and the Co$ have largely failed at B.
Obama's implementation plan also fails in at B.


Control through Tone 40? Real Tone 40 is wonderful! but few people actually have any idea what it is. It is not shouting or forceful - it is pure love and serenity that genuinely inspires a willingness to cooperate and contribute. Arguments and resistance evaporate. Everyone loves real Tone 40 Control.
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
<snip>

Control through Tone 40? Real Tone 40 is wonderful! but few people actually have any idea what it is. It is not shouting or forceful - it is pure love and serenity that genuinely inspires a willingness to cooperate and contribute. Arguments and resistance evaporate. Everyone loves real Tone 40 Control.

So you make your ashtrays stand up and sit down with love and serenity? Great! Does it work better than yelling at 'em?

Ugh, gotta change my Sig now...
 
Top