Source of wealth of Scientologists

Achi

Patron
No, as The Anabaptist Jacques pointed out, he and I made an argument and gave our rationale. Alex and you just called us names.

And don't worry, you used your Scientology training to perfection. Never defend, always attack. When (as almost always) a Scientologist cannot make an argument on the merits, make a personal attack and/or change the subject.

Pass. Very well done.

You talk very pretty, and considering that I am here as a person who has rejected Scientology, you are using these buttons to try and hurt me. Your arguments were based on personal perceptions, not scientific survey. I still think you are both pompous, and also mean spirited.

So, I leave you to it. :sleepy:
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
They believed that Hubbard was right about the necessity of money (for him).

The Anabaptist Jacques
That's quite true TAJ. I'm no Hubbard apologist but don't you think that all those instructions he left about "making money" were to do with actually making money by making Auditors who then made it to OT?

There is a very interesting Policy Letter in the Original OEC Vol 7 where he berates SH staff for attempting to make money by any other means than delivering Training and Services. He must have forgotten about it and obviously DM and his ilk missed that one.

I used to hammer on this when I was in and would protest the no-exchange donations and constant attention on things other than making Auditors. The Tech/Admin ratio in the CofS is horrendously askew.

It's all a bit of a non-argument for me these days, I'm afraid.

I have certainly changed my mind about many things since I left the CofS.
 
You talk very pretty, and considering that I am here as a person who has rejected Scientology, you are using these buttons to try and hurt me. Your arguments were based on personal perceptions, not scientific survey. I still think you are both pompous, and also mean spirited.

So, I leave you to it. :sleepy:

The point is this Achi, we were discussing an idea and you and Alex entered into the conversation by simply calling us names.

That is mean spirited. Is it not?

You can think what you want and say what you want, but you seem to take offense when someone else does the same.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
That's quite true TAJ. I'm no Hubbard apologist but don't you think that all those instructions he left about "making money" were to do with actually making money by making Auditors who then made it to OT?

There is a very interesting Policy Letter in the Original OEC Vol 7 where he berates SH staff for attempting to make money by any other means than delivering Training and Services. He must have forgotten about it and obviously DM and his ilk missed that one.

I used to hammer on this when I was in and would protest the no-exchange donations and constant attention on things other than making Auditors. The Tech/Admin ratio in the CofS is horrendously askew.

It's all a bit of a non-argument for me these days, I'm afraid.

I have certainly changed my mind about many things since I left the CofS.

I wonder though, what was the income ratio on the ship when Ron was there. I suspect he made most of his money on the ship from auditing.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
I'd be interested to know the answer to that question too.
The HCOPL I referred to pre-dated the SO experiment, it was written in the early days of Saint Hill.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Hubbard was a shady character from the beginning. Stuffing money into shoe boxes and then declaring "I have no money" bankruptcy, implementing Crush/Hard Sell, and before that there was good old fashioned fraud.

His possible connection to organized crime in the early 1950s is intriguing and disturbing. He obtained his cocaine from some place. One of the first people to speak out about Ron Sr.'s drug use was Ron Jr., and he was attacked fiercely for it. People thought he was insane. Turned out he was right, and Hubbard's drug use has since been confirmed by many others and by court documents. Ron Jr. also stated that his father - on several occasions - made money by funding drug smuggling. Crazy? About as crazy as what Hubbard did to Paulette Cooper (which could have easily landed him in prison), or - possibly - to his 2nd wife, whose home was subjected to two arson fires and burglaries. (2nd wife Sara had photos and correspondence that Hubbard wanted destroyed. Note the reference to arson in the first - March 1965 - 'Fair Game' issue.)

When Hubbard went to Rhodesia, he had visions of retrieving what he believed to be Rhodes' hidden stashes of gold and diamonds, and then there was the 'Mission into Time' project to unearth other buried riches.

The earliest instance of which I know of a wealthy Scientologist being contacted with the idea that he make a large donation to a special project (rather than buy a service) was around 1970, but then that sort of thing was kept behind the scenes - but it occurred.

Hubbard wanted money any way he could get it, and bleeding rich PCs was quite acceptable. Hubbard didn't like them, an more than he liked the Mission Holders, but great emphasis was placed on maintaining a sugary sweet PR "ARC" with both - except when Hubbard ordered selected Mission Holders attacked and drained of income, as had occured since the 1960s, and then occurred to all simultaneously in the early 1980s - with Hubbard wanting what he saw as his money from people he felt were likely to betray him. (The 1982 looting was when Miscavige scored big brownie points with Hubbard by fulfilling "Command Intention.")

And remember the David Mayo recollection of Hubbard's comment to him that he - Hubbard - "had an insatiable lust for money and power" ?

And who can forget the 1976 'Solution to inflation': "Your fees do not go to me," while Hubbard was stashing the money in his private bank accounts.

Should this be surprising? Hubbard's earliest (1938) statement on his life's plan emphasized his covert - self aggrandizing - "real goal," and spoke of "smashing" not "enlightenment." In his 'Affirmations' he reassured himself of his hypnotic powers over others. Two years later he wrote, 'Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health' fortified by booze and Benzedrine.

As Ron Jr. said about his dad's substance abuse: "He could get brilliant on the stuff."
 
I just wanted to toss out an idea I've been mulling for a long time before I go to dinner and maybe catch a movie. It has to do with the source of the earnings, wealth, income, savings, etc. of Scientologists. I'm referring to individual, public Scientologists who support the superstructure that is Scientology. Not FSMs. The people who earn, or have, "wog" money that is subsequently poured into the CO$ for auditing, training, ideal orgs, and to receive meaningless certificates and shiny medals.

My theory is that, when compared to the public at large, such earnings, wealth, income, savings, etc. is far less correlated to critical thinking skills and, well, intelligence (at least narrowly defined; i.e., not "emotional intelligence, but instead math / logic / scientific intelligence) than the public in general.

When you have as much money as some of the people who can be photographed at Flag getting those expensive certs, and donating shitloads to IAS you do not need critical thinking skills. Wealthy people usually do know enough about "math" to count their money.:)
Comparing them with the "public at large" - well, look at the public at large. I see a lot of them who are destitute in critical thinking skills. Quite a few people who are critical thinkers in general become nutty when they think about religion or "spirituality". So I don't believe the dumb ones giving their loot to the cult are any dumber than the public at large. They are the public at large, that is, until taken into custody by the cult



It seems a lot of people who spend a ton of money on Scientology, and particularly the "Grand Jubilee Puba Meritoriouses," have inherited wealth. Or are spending mommy and daddy's money. And I'm saying this is true to a greater extent than with a group that contributes comparable amounts to other "charitable" [LOL :omg: ] endeavors.

Yes.


As for those who earned their money, it seemed a lot had professions where, to be precise, and quite frankly insulting (but perhaps not inaccurate), they were: (1) overpaid; and (2) again, the earnings were not highly correlated with critical thinking skills or intelligence as I've defined it. In other words, for example:

People who profit from artistic talent (e.g., primarily actors, but also musicians, singers, artists, etc.)

Yes that's very insulting. The cult makes those ones visible for PR reasons.


People is sales.

Dentists are very disproportionately represented, as compared to doctors who are underrepresented.

Dentists are the highest paid profession in some places. They may have more freedom to come and go than doctors - so they are a good target for the cult.


Court Reporters. (As I recall an extremely disproportionate number in the COS.)

Are you saying their are a lot in scio? OSA prolly gets members to become reporters.
Other people who due to anomalies in the economic system that deviate from a pure, free market, "your income is directly linked to the value you add" system, and/or artificial monopolies, earn more than one would expect (or hope).

I guess what I'm trying to say, in the nicest possible way, is that compared with other churches and "charities" [LOL :omg: ] -- e.g., mainstream Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues, museums, hospitals, universities, symphony orchestras, ballets, zoos, etc. -- the Church of Scientology disproportionately receives its income and contributions from the demographic that may be described as "disproportionately wealthy and relatively dumb," or "disproportionately wealthy given how, well, relatively dumb they are."

I think they are fucking dumb too. But that's just my prejudice and envy.
They got cash. Don't need to analyse stuff unless it affects their cash flow so may or may not be critical thinkers. T

They sure look dumb spending it on space-cootie hunting. But you only need to look at this board to see that people who drank the large glass of cool-aid are not dumb and are respected for their thinking skills, shown in their posts.
Would you or I have drank ALL the coolaid if you'd had the money? I would have. I could not go further cos I had no money.


And are you saying that the people in those other "conventional" religions are smarter than scios? I don't think so. Have they gotten over their terrible problem about same-sex marriages yet?



We already know that Scientologists are, on average, less educated than the public at large. (Or at least far, far less educated than a group that would have to make comparable financial contributions to another religion or "charity.")

Perhaps Scientologists are also, on average, just more stupid.

Where are your stats or references? You are calling people stupid apparently with quite a serious(thoughtful) intent. If so you should give some evidence otherwise you look very hypocritical.

Just a thought.

Disclaimer. Yes I know, I am not beyond calling people "stupid" myself.
I think the context matters. The OP seems to be a serious statement on a theory that large groups of people including certain professions are somehow less intelligent than the "public at large" (whoever they are). My own profession is not related to any of those mentioned.
 
I just wanted to toss out an idea I've been mulling for a long time before I go to dinner and maybe catch a movie. It has to do with the source of the earnings, wealth, income, savings, etc. of Scientologists. I'm referring to individual, public Scientologists who support the superstructure that is Scientology. Not FSMs. The people who earn, or have, "wog" money that is subsequently poured into the CO$ for auditing, training, ideal orgs, and to receive meaningless certificates and shiny medals.

My theory is that, when compared to the public at large, such earnings, wealth, income, savings, etc. is far less correlated to critical thinking skills and, well, intelligence (at least narrowly defined; i.e., not "emotional intelligence, but instead math / logic / scientific intelligence) than the public in general.

When you have as much money as some of the people who can be photographed at Flag getting those expensive certs, and donating shitloads to IAS you do not need critical thinking skills. Wealthy people usually do know enough about "math" to count their money.:)
Comparing them with the "public at large" - well, look at the public at large. I see a lot of them who are destitute in critical thinking skills. Quite a few people who are critical thinkers in general become nutty when they think about religion or "spirituality". So I don't believe the dumb ones giving their loot to the cult are mot any dumber than the public at large. They are the public at large, that is, until taken into custody by the cult



It seems a lot of people who spend a ton of money on Scientology, and particularly the "Grand Jubilee Puba Meritoriouses," have inherited wealth. Or are spending mommy and daddy's money. And I'm saying this is true to a greater extent than with a group that contributes comparable amounts to other "charitable" [LOL :omg: ] endeavors.

Yes.


As for those who earned their money, it seemed a lot had professions where, to be precise, and quite frankly insulting (but perhaps not inaccurate), they were: (1) overpaid; and (2) again, the earnings were not highly correlated with critical thinking skills or intelligence as I've defined it. In other words, for example:

People who profit from artistic talent (e.g., primarily actors, but also musicians, singers, artists, etc.)

Yes that's very insulting. The cult makes those ones visible for PR reasons.


People is sales.

Dentists are very disproportionately represented, as compared to doctors who are underrepresented.

Dentists are the highest paid profession in some places. They may have more freedom to come and go than doctors - so they are a good target for the cult.


Court Reporters. (As I recall an extremely disproportionate number in the COS.)

Are you saying their are a lot in scio? OSA prolly gets members to become reporters.
Other people who due to anomalies in the economic system that deviate from a pure, free market, "your income is directly linked to the value you add" system, and/or artificial monopolies, earn more than one would expect (or hope).

I guess what I'm trying to say, in the nicest possible way, is that compared with other churches and "charities" [LOL :omg: ] -- e.g., mainstream Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues, museums, hospitals, universities, symphony orchestras, ballets, zoos, etc. -- the Church of Scientology disproportionately receives its income and contributions from the demographic that may be described as "disproportionately wealthy and relatively dumb," or "disproportionately wealthy given how, well, relatively dumb they are."

I think they are fucking dumb too. But that's just my prejudice and envy.
They got cash. Don't need to analyse stuff unless it affects their cash flow so may or may not be critical thinkers. T

They sure look dumb spending it on space-cootie hunting. But you only need to look at this board to see that people who drank the large glass of cool-aid are not dumb and are respected for their thinking skills, shown in their posts.
Would you or I have drank ALL the coolaid if you'd had the money? I would have. I could not go further cos I had no money.


And are you saying that the people in those other "conventional" religions are smarter than scios? I don't think so. Have they gotten over their terrible problem about same-sex marriages yet?



We already know that Scientologists are, on average, less educated than the public at large. (Or at least far, far less educated than a group that would have to make comparable financial contributions to another religion or "charity.")

Perhaps Scientologists are also, on average, just more stupid.

Where are your stats or references? You are calling people stupid apparently with quite a serious(thoughtful) intent. If so you should give some evidence otherwise you look very hypocritical.

Just a thought.

Disclaimer. Yes I know, I am not beyond calling people "stupid" myself.
I think the context matters. The OP seems to be a serious statement on a theory that large groups of people including certain professions are somehow less intelligent than the "public at large" (whoever they are). My own profession is not related to any of those mentioned.
 
Disclaimer. Yes I know, I am not beyond calling people "stupid" myself.
I think the context matters. The OP seems to be a serious statement on a theory that large groups of people including certain professions are somehow less intelligent than the "public at large" (whoever they are). My own profession is not related to any of those mentioned.

I believe the exact words in the original posts were:

"My theory is that, when compared to the public at large, such earnings, wealth, income, savings, etc. is far less correlated to critical thinking skills and, well, intelligence (at least narrowly defined; i.e., not "emotional intelligence, but instead math / logic / scientific intelligence) than the public in general."

I don't think this refers to "large groups of people" but to those who specifically earned substantial income from their professions, and that the earnings of those professions do not require significant critical thinking skills.

Some people have reacted (over-reacted in my opinion) to this statement as being pompous and calling people stupid.

But the point that is being missed here is that you add this statement about those professions to the fact that those people are also active in the cult, and that there is a preponderance of those particular professions in the cult.

Brick by brick, this supports the conclusion that these people are lacking in some critical thinking skills, or in technical terms, their elevators don't go all the way to the top.

I think the term critical thinking skills is loaded because it implies that these skills are fixed quantities and qualities or a fixed formula that a person has or does not have.

Rather, I think critical thinking skills are one of many mental tools a person draws on depending on the situation. Intuition is another.

A person may have critical thinking skills in some areas but not in others. A peson may be intuitive in some areas and not in other areas.

I think many people remain in Scientology even though intuitively they see that things are wrong.

And I think people can sometimes use their critical thinking skills to argue against their own intuition, or reversly, have their intuitive feelings override their critical thinking. The boundaries of critical thinking and intuition are not clearly defined.

As for myself, my critical thinking skills finally overuled my intuition, and that is what got me out of Scientology.

My gut feeling was that Scientology could save the world but my critical thinking reasoned otherwise.

Especially when I realized that what I thought was my intutition was actually just my repeating in my mind the indoctrination I received in Scientology.

But getting back to these stupid dentist (just kidding), I personally do not think it is because of critical thinking skills.

I think the problem is that what we are calling stupid or unintelligent is a low capacity to see and understand the variance of forces and factors that effect things.

I'm talking simply about plurality of ideas and views. You see this often on this board, too, when somone argues that there is only one cause for something, or lumps all the variety of factors in something like the subject of religion itself, and give it one meaning and one cause.

Scientology auditing, training, and culture adopts and fortifies a person's thinking this way.

So if a person is already prone to this monoideaism in their professional life, it is easy to rope them in and keep them in Scientology.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
I agree! :)

Now, back on topic: The main "cheating" that occurs when someone does the so-called Auditing Route is quite obvious, the PC is cheated.

Hubbard has stated innumerable times that the person will NOT make it to OT without the Training. Registrars and C/Ss that allow people to go the Processing Route are violating very basic Hubbard instructions and thereby expose their own lack of belief in the actuality of the postulated "results" of scientology.

Either that or they think Hubbard was wrong about the necessity for training.

Very good point. The folk who receive only auditing may have a few impediments removed from their living of life, but it is the people who are trained who have the skills to really creating the life situation that they envision. To realize the fruits of the philosophy.

My personal opinion is that the church would be entirely different if the ot levels were only available to auditors with a certain number of well done hours and good results. It would change the character of the church and there would be so many auditors looking for pc's that it would inevitably spill out into "the world". Prices would have to fall, many more hours of lower level auditing would be delivered, orgs boom....

Wake up alex, your dreaming.....

:melodramatic:

Auditors ARE OT. What they do is OT.
 

JustanotherEX

Patron with Honors
Very good point. The folk who receive only auditing may have a few impediments removed from their living of life, but it is the people who are trained who have the skills to really creating the life situation that they envision. To realize the fruits of the philosophy.

My personal opinion is that the church would be entirely different if the ot levels were only available to auditors with a certain number of well done hours and good results. It would change the character of the church and there would be so many auditors looking for pc's that it would inevitably spill out into "the world". Prices would have to fall, many more hours of lower level auditing would be delivered, orgs boom....

Wake up alex, your dreaming.....

:melodramatic:

Auditors ARE OT. What they do is OT.

Alex, I've no idea of your history in Scientology... and it probably isn't relevant to what I will say.

You see, decades ago people were expressing the same sentiments you are in your post. things like"With just a few small changes we could take this mainstream and push auditing hours to fantastically high levels!". I was one of those people.

But it was not to be. The marketing plan was to market to the "upstat as defined by income". Yes, that will clear the planet alright. Heh. My dissapointment was legendary when I realized how little Ron wanted to achieve.

In retrospect, it turned out for the best in that respect. A boutique "religion" wannabe that never delivered on the basic promises of the elementary thing referred to as a "clear".

It's a peculiar thing I see played out in it. It's not that those who signed on for the trip were stupid, but that they were trusting enough to believe the proposition that "it's all for the greater good" and "we will save the world". Those are optimistic outlooks and hint at noble spirits.... but those same qualities were used to further the ends of some rather ignoble players in the drama.

I remind myself sometimes that only those who are capable of trust are ever likely to be found to be worthy of it themselves. Now just how much trust did good old Ron have? Some old time mission holders might have some interesting things to say on the matter.
 
Last edited:

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
The OP seems to be a serious statement on a theory that large groups of people including certain professions are somehow less intelligent than the "public at large" (whoever they are).
I'll try to make it even more clear.

I think that people people in certain professions tend, on average, to be more intelligent, or at least have superior critical thinking skills, than people in other professions.

For example, I think that people who are medical doctors, engineers, MBAs, and physicists (with a Ph.D.) tend, on average, to be more intelligent, or at least have superior critical thinking skills, than people who are garbage collectors, used car salesmen, shoe salesman and, yes, chiropractors and court reporters.

I don't think that is a remarkable observation.

Are there exceptions? Of course. I personally knew one guy who had a genius IQ who, for various reasons, wound up as a shoe salesman his entire life. There is nothing wrong with that. I'm talking about averages.

The second part of my theory -- and it is just a theory -- is that, when compared to people who contribute similar amounts of money to other religions or charitable endeavors (e.g., hospitals, symphonies, universities, etc. as opposed to the IAS and Ideal Orgs), Scientologists disproportionately contribute money that came from the latter professions (e.g., garbage collectors, used car salesmen, shoe salesman, chiropractors and court reporters), than the former professions (e.g., medical doctors, engineers, MBAs, and physicists (with a Ph.D.).

Put another way, the class of people which includes medical doctors, engineers, MBAs, and physicists (with a Ph.D.) probably, on average, contribute proportionately less money to Scientology than the class of people which includes garbage collectors, used car salesmen, shoe salesman, chiropractors and court reporters.

Could I be wrong? Of course. It is a factual argument based on my observations from living in world, and being involved in Scientology, over a long period of time. No, it is not based on "scientific survey." So what? Tough.

Finally, there have been posts in this thread that complain that I've "attacked" individuals, or said or implied something individual Scientologists (or ex-Scientologists). I have done no such thing. I've talked about tendencies and averages. To say that your average medical doctor is probably more intelligent than your average garbage collector does not mean that medical doctor Sam Smith is more intelligent than garbage collector John Jones. John Jones may be a genius, and Sam Smith may be mediocre. [I recently read an article about a genius who was a biker and motorcycle mechanic. That is what he wanted to do. More power to him.]
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
I wonder though, what was the income ratio on the ship when Ron was there. I suspect he made most of his money on the ship from auditing.

The Anabaptist Jacques

No way!

The ship was mainly for training. Only a very few came for processing.

The ratio of those being trained and those just getting processing was about 100/1.

Many getting trained also bought flag processing!

Alan
 
I believe the exact words in the original posts were:

"My theory is that, when compared to the public at large, such earnings, wealth, income, savings, etc. is far less correlated to critical thinking skills and, well, intelligence (at least narrowly defined; i.e., not "emotional intelligence, but instead math / logic / scientific intelligence) than the public in general."

I don't think this refers to "large groups of people" but to those who specifically earned substantial income from their professions, and that the earnings of those professions do not require significant critical thinking skills.

Some people have reacted (over-reacted in my opinion) to this statement as being pompous and calling people stupid.

But the point that is being missed here is that you add this statement about those professions to the fact that those people are also active in the cult, and that there is a preponderance of those particular professions in the cult.

Brick by brick, this supports the conclusion that these people are lacking in some critical thinking skills, or in technical terms, their elevators don't go all the way to the top.

I think the term critical thinking skills is loaded because it implies that these skills are fixed quantities and qualities or a fixed formula that a person has or does not have.

Rather, I think critical thinking skills are one of many mental tools a person draws on depending on the situation. Intuition is another.

A person may have critical thinking skills in some areas but not in others. A peson may be intuitive in some areas and not in other areas.

I think many people remain in Scientology even though intuitively they see that things are wrong.

And I think people can sometimes use their critical thinking skills to argue against their own intuition, or reversly, have their intuitive feelings override their critical thinking. The boundaries of critical thinking and intuition are not clearly defined.

As for myself, my critical thinking skills finally overuled my intuition, and that is what got me out of Scientology.

My gut feeling was that Scientology could save the world but my critical thinking reasoned otherwise.

Especially when I realized that what I thought was my intutition was actually just my repeating in my mind the indoctrination I received in Scientology.

But getting back to these stupid dentist (just kidding), I personally do not think it is because of critical thinking skills.

I think the problem is that what we are calling stupid or unintelligent is a low capacity to see and understand the variance of forces and factors that effect things.

I'm talking simply about plurality of ideas and views. You see this often on this board, too, when somone argues that there is only one cause for something, or lumps all the variety of factors in something like the subject of religion itself, and give it one meaning and one cause.

Scientology auditing, training, and culture adopts and fortifies a person's thinking this way.

So if a person is already prone to this monoideaism in their professional life, it is easy to rope them in and keep them in Scientology.

The Anabaptist Jacques


I think the fact that people select which mental/thinking/intuitional skills they will use in particular situations is intertesting. The way that they do it and how aware they are of the process(es) is probably worth understanding.
The way they deslect skills or over-rule them is worth being aware of too.

You mention "a low capacity to see and understand the variance of forces and factors that effect things", as what we are calling stupid or dumb. Then you mention plurality of ideas and views.

That capacity is sometimes innate (natural ability) but often social-political.
Some fat cats don't want their gravy trains driven off course by developing "a understanding of the variance of forces and factors that affect things"

(by social-political I don't mean political parties etc, I mean the personal politics people play to get what they want and the social situations they use for that).

Anyhow getting back to the stupid dentists (LOL) and others. I think they do have the capacity to understand the "variance of forces and factors....etc"
They understand it very well and know how to deselect discomfort zones on the horizon. They know which side their thick slices of bread are buttered on.

They might need to retrain on that capacity if they ever feel like using it *without* habitual deselection because it will be a bit rusty.

The CHIROPRACTORS considered separately from doctors and dentists...
well, they may have a "steeper gradient" :redface:
 

Outethicsofficer

Silver Meritorious Patron
Fuck

I have run a successful cleaning business for the last twenty years, just this last Thursday I worked 22 hrs straight came home and had 2hrs sleep then got up and worked another 11 hrs straight, worked all weekend now here I am posting a reply to this tread. Come and work with me for a week and you will want to take a year off. There are many on this board who will vouch for what I am saying.

In all of this I maintain in fucking good sense of humor, until I read such :bs: . But hey have a point of view, who gives a fuck anyway. Think what you fucking well like, I do. So while I might not be able to say this is fuck-wit type of comm. I can at least think it! Besides I am still waiting for my fucking inheritance.:soapbox: Go and ask Feral or Panda or Scooter we've all worked hard to be fucked over:yes: :yes: :yes:

Okay, I feel better now so thanks for putting something there for me to take a shot at your point of view seems to me to be largely uninformed hence your post, I get you are looking for some clarification on where the $ comes from.

In most cases, hard work and being willing in a lot of cases to make whatever $ it takes to do the things that get done.

So next time pick a less sensitive topic will you! You see, because I am not now sending huge amounts of $ into the Cof$ I have been able to afford a few bottles of bloody good red wine, some of which I consumed before posting this reply.

So if I come across a bit in your face, blame it on the wine.

James

Don't take offense, I am just 5'6'' of fucking dynamite once my fuse gets lit:angry: :angry:
 
I just wanted to toss out an idea I've been mulling for a long time before I go to dinner and maybe catch a movie.

[snip]

Perhaps Scientologists are also, on average, just more stupid.

Just a thought.

If Sceintology focused on what makes a person become a member of a cult like Sceintology and tried to cured them of this condition, instead of searching for imaginary spiritual parasites ,Sceintology might actually have some value.
 

Div6

Crusader
What motivates people to invest with a fraudster like Bernie Madoff (who arguably pulled off an even bigger scam than Hubbard\DM and Co.)?

They wanted a return on their money without having to exert any effort. Madoff sat back as the suckers just kept lining up...and it worked as long as the economy was in an uptrend. The believers kept on believing. Until they woke up one morning and were totally wiped out. Completely. This was supposedly "the smart money".

I mention this as the OP has not cited any demographics to support his initial observations. My point is that I don't think this phenomenon is limited to the (small and shrinking) world of Scn, but is reflected through out different segments of society.

Abuse of trust and lack of integrity are 2 issues. But let me ask you this: Have you ever been in a position of trust, created something that worked (for the moment), experienced success, and then after the party was over had to tell the people involved that it was over? One example that comes to mind is the dissolution and aftermath of Cream. Clapton joined Delaney and Bonnie and toured the US with them in relative obscurity for a while, trying to stay "true" to his roots, as it were, while "the fans" wouldn't let Cream die...

There is much denial that occurs in such moments. And in a few instances I have seen "the people" insist that "the show be kept on the road" despite the insolvency and other issues.

To their credit Madoffs Family went straight to the Feds after BM "got off his withhold". The truth was hurtful and ugly, but the lie was unsustainable.
 
Last edited:

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
OP has not cited any demographics to support his initial observations.
Your arguments were based on personal perceptions, not scientific survey.
This is a discussion board, not a Ph.D. thesis.

My theories are based on my personal empirical observations. My observations may be inaccurate. If so, please tell me so and, more importantly, why. My theory may be wrong. If so, please tell me so and, more importantly, why.

I find it interesting that on a discussion board where people, with a straight face, can explain, discuss and post "success stories" about the psychological, emotional and other benefits of communicating with the invisible dead space aliens that infest their bodies, and not be called on it, my personal observations regarding the population makeup of the COS, that are not, on their face, irrational, should be criticized because I haven't "cited any demographics" or made a "scientific survey."

Talk about a double standard.
Dead space alien infestation ==> no evidence needed.
Personal observations about the COS that are not, on their face, irrational ==> "You didn't do a survey!"
 
Last edited:

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
considering that I am here as a person who has rejected Scientology, you are using these buttons to try and hurt me.
I have run a successful cleaning business for the last twenty years, just this last Thursday I worked 22 hrs straight came home and had 2hrs sleep then got up and worked another 11 hrs straight, worked all weekend now here I am posting a reply to this tread. Come and work with me for a week and you will want to take a year off. There are many on this board who will vouch for what I am saying.

In all of this I maintain in fucking good sense of humor, until I read such :bs:
Don't take offense, I am just 5'6'' of fucking dynamite once my fuse gets lit:angry: :angry:
My purpose was not to hurt Achi, or anyone else. I did not say anything about individuals.

There have been posts in this thread that assert or are based on the belief that I've "attacked" individuals, or said or implied something individual Scientologists (or ex-Scientologists). I have done no such thing. I've talked about tendencies and averages.

To say that your average medical doctor is probably more intelligent than your average garbage collector does not mean that medical doctor Sam Smith is more intelligent than garbage collector John Jones. John Jones may be a genius, and Sam Smith may be mediocre. [I recently read an article about a genius who was a biker and motorcycle mechanic. That is what he wanted to do. More power to him.]
 
Top