WHAT HAPPENED TO SCIENTOLOGY

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
The basics of scientology such as the 8 dynamics, the ARC triangle, the tone scale - what may I ask do you find fault with that.

The theoretical ideas proposed contain some truth and were interesting to explore.

But, alas, Ron the Explorer is the only being in the universe allowed to explore because he alone (I was informed in KSW) was granted the exclusive licensing deal for all intellectual properties explaining life.

While perhaps I could afford the "mest" royalty payments, I went bankrupt psychologically, spiritually and morally.

I prefer knowledge that is not sold by rabid cult members who stalk and punish anyone who doesn't apply it the way they demand.

I also don't buy cars from dealerships that require I obtain CSW approval each time I want to drive somewhere--in order to hammer out of existence incorrect destinations.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
The basics of scientology such as the 8 dynamics, the ARC triangle, the tone scale - what may I ask do you find fault with that.

Just to jump in on this, which I missed before.

The 8 Dynamics are relatively arbitrary and tendentious 'categories' without any real world significance. As a taxonomy, they're a little silly, especially since Scientology only really concentrates on 1, 2, 3, 4 and *possibly* 8, with the other 3 of very little direct interest to the subject.

The ARC Triangle is *deliberately* false.

The 'Tone Scale' is, once again, arbitrary, random and deliberately tendentious both in what's included and the 'order' in which they're placed. The numerical quantifications are ludicrous and obviously only applied to suggest some kind of (non-existent) scientific rigor. There is no evidence for any real world significance to Ron's arbitrary continuum and the exercises and 'processes' based on the Tone Scale are demonstrably ineffective. (See PR Tech)

But, even more, those three elements of Scientology are *not* in any sense 'basic' to Scientology. If not them, it could be *anything*. The Five Glorps. The 20 Framistats. The Archie Comix. Ron could have *invented* any such 'system' of categories and pounded 'reality' into the square holes.

The *basis* of scientology is the premise that there is a 'natural state' called 'clear' that is 'unaberrated' and therefore full of *normal* godlike powers, and that Scientology practices can help one achieve this 'natural state'.

There is not only no evidence for this supposed 'Natural State' or its puported 'abilities', but even if there *were*, there is no evidence that Scientology practices could help in achieving them.

Remember; Scientology's premise is that all the godlike powers are *recovered* and, without alien implants and deliberate malicious 'suppression' would exist in all Thetans.

There is no evidence for *any* of the above.

Zinj
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Helluva - where did you find this clip?

Here is the Source reference on that.

It's an early Scn Tech Film from Ron's original research on teenagers, before they were able to regress themselves...

Where did you get this classic film clip? The 50's as shown in this video look so innocent and naive as compared to the world we live in today, 60 or so years later. I think the stuff this guy is teaching has more merit than what they teach in Psychology today. It is less heavy, less complex, has less significance.

A few words for Lexmark - You and I are the exact same age. Where you on the Apollo as late as October 1973?, if so I was there too. The old Celebrity in the early 1970's was a fun place to be. It gave the illusion of being a very happy place and I was convinced the tech worked. The people there both staff and public were much as you described, mainly good hearted and friendly.

Things looked great for Scientology from the viewpoint of that time, and that place but the Camelot facade was eventually exposed for the brutal place which it really was. It took me years to wise up but when I got the message, I really got it.

We can argue all day whether anyone actually got any benefits there or not, there are strong supporters on both sides of that fence. I would only say that if you feel you made some gains and were helped by it, you are entitled to express your opinion and your detractors are entitled to express theirs. I enjoyed your story and am impressed by how much you learned about steam engines by having hands on experience. Your story was very interesting and you seem like a good guy. We older geezers should stick together and stand up for one another.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
The Scientology Zone presents...

The 8 Dynamics are relatively arbitrary and tendentious 'categories' without any real world significance. As a taxonomy, they're a little silly, especially since Scientology only really concentrates on 1, 2, 3, 4 and *possibly* 8, with the other 3 of very little direct interest to the subject.

rod.jpg

Presented For Your Consideration.....

Yes, "really concentrates" its marketing on 1,2,3,4...

However, in reality...

Scientology is fully, totally & exclusively dedicated to the 6th Dynamic--luxurious lifestyles of the high priests, buildings & money. The annoying devT enhancement of parishioner "dynamics" is done to make them better earners--so there is more to donate.

The rest of the Dynamics are Div VI Introductory Dynamics, so people get a warm and fuzzy idea they are helping themselves or mankind.

Ain't no joke or exaggeration.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Where did you get this classic film clip? The 50's as shown in this video look so innocent and naive as compared to the world we live in today, 60 or so years later.

Lakester....don't you just love the hokey, hoaxster host of that show that is the "authority on the human mind"? Hmmm, reminds me of something....

If anyone was curious to know where exactly Hubbard's hideously outdated videomarketing style came from (e.g. Orientation Film or the Tech Film where the psychiatrist is shouting "The Brain!!!", etc....) look no further than the early 1950's cringe-inducing instructional-industrial movies. Unlike high quality art that stands the test of time, the shelf life on Hubbard's lame, amateurish infomercials expired back about 1961.

As a person who has done professional scriptwriting and corporate copy writing, I am simply AMAZED how stilted and wooden the writing and delivery of each line of dialogue is. The entirety of Scientology's library of promo films is like a joke-reel of outtakes that were too awful to imagine. The only thing missing is the actors cracking up. Scientology actors are trained, however, that this is a "deadly serious" activity and never laugh.

I'm laughing though. We are all laughing. The whole world is laughing.

Only Scientology doesn't get the joke.
 
Last edited:

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
You're so *negative* HH!!!!

What are you? Some kind of suppressive?

I'd love to see early Ron Industrial if I could only get stoned first. I probably wouldn't even turn off the sound...

Zinj
 
There is no evidence for *any* of the above.

Zinj

Yeah know, Z, in the name of full disclosure you might want to include in your sig line that you are a long term critic with absolutely NO personal experience, either "good" or "bad", with the tech of scientology.

Wouldn't want to mislead people with your comments now, would you? :whistling:


Mark A. Baker
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Yeah know, Z, in the name of full disclosure you might want to include in your sig line that you are a long term critic with absolutely NO personal experience, either "good" or "bad", with the tech of scientology.

Wouldn't want to mislead people with your comments now, would you? :whistling:


Mark A. Baker

Why would I need to Mark? I'm perfectly happy having you 'keep me honest' here. Even though I never claimed any 'participation' in Scientology. And, as far as that goes, I have quite a bit of experience with both Scientologists and Scientology Tech, albeit, not as an 'insider'. I do give my interpretations of Scientology Tech, and, I would hope that people take them as less than absolute.

How would the fact that I've *never* seen any indication of Scientology's 'Natural State = Clear' or that Scientology has *ever* assisted to 'recover' these abilities be dependent on whether I myself was or had been a Scientologist?

I *will* grant you that Trained Scientologists *may* see evidence for such. But, I would attribute that to the actual 'effect' of Scientology processes: painting 150 MPH on the speedometer of a Yugo.

Zinj
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Yeah know, Z, in the name of full disclosure you might want to include in your sig line that you are a long term critic with absolutely NO personal experience, either "good" or "bad", with the tech of scientology.

Wouldn't want to mislead people with your comments now, would you? :whistling:


Mark A. Baker
Sometimes someone can see a thing more clearly from the outside, Mark :)

cover-omfo.jpg


Image may or may not be relevant.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Yeah know, Z, in the name of full disclosure you might want to include in your sig line that you are a long term critic with absolutely NO personal experience, either "good" or "bad", with the tech of scientology. Wouldn't want to mislead people with your comments now, would you? :whistling:
Mark A. Baker

Great point!

That's what I keep telling the Judges who sentenced serial killers Manson, Gacy, Dahmer, Bundy and others...

What personal experience do they have murdering people that entitles them to judge another human being?

The injustice of it all really enrages me!
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Why would I need to Mark? I'm perfectly happy having you 'keep me honest' here. Even though I never claimed any 'participation' in Scientology. And, as far as that goes, I have quite a bit of experience with both Scientologists and Scientology Tech, albeit, not as an 'insider'. I do give my interpretations of Scientology Tech, and, I would hope that people take them as less than absolute. How would the fact that I've *never* seen any indication of Scientology's 'Natural State = Clear' or that Scientology has *ever* assisted to 'recover' these abilities be dependent on whether I myself was or had been a Scientologist?I *will* grant you that Trained Scientologists *may* see evidence for such. But, I would attribute that to the actual 'effect' of Scientology processes: painting 150 MPH on the speedometer of a Yugo.

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: hilarious!:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

....and it wouldn't make any difference if you were an "insider" who had done the entire training and auditing "bridge".

I am. I did.

And true-believer Scientologists likewise dismiss my opinions as lacking.

Since I didn't do the "real bridge" that only a few elite illuminati can speak with authority on.

Hey, come to think of it, if you get them talkin' you will even learn that RON himself didn't do the bridge right.

It's a roulette wheel with no numbers printed on it. The house will tell you if you won or not. I am pretty sure you can trust them.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
You're so *negative* HH!!!!What are you? Some kind of suppressive?I'd love to see early Ron Industrial if I could only get stoned first. I probably wouldn't even turn off the sound...Zinj

What are you? Some kind of suppressive?

Yes.

I had a goal. I made it happen.

Thanks Ron.
 

Eelo Ars

Patron
Well, Lexmark, from what I can see here, you triggered a whole bunch of stuff when you gave the smallest bit of credit to LRH. And, unfortunately, all of that triggered resentment and rage got transferred to you. But, hold on. Pretty soon someone else will give a bit of praise, then you will be off the hook. Let us hope it is very, very soon - and pity the next poor bastard who says something the least bit positive about LRH or Scientology.

Meanwhile, may the universal random number generator favor you.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Hoaxology assessment of the 8 dynamics

rod.jpg

Presented For Your Consideration.....

Yes, "really concentrates" its marketing on 1,2,3,4...

However, in reality...

Scientology is fully, totally & exclusively dedicated to the 6th Dynamic--luxurious lifestyles of the high priests, buildings & money. The annoying devT enhancement of parishioner "dynamics" is done to make them better earners--so there is more to donate.

The rest of the Dynamics are Div VI Introductory Dynamics, so people get a warm and fuzzy idea they are helping themselves or mankind.

Ain't no joke or exaggeration.

Helluva, when I was taking my Hoaxology basic intro course we were asked to do a metered assessment form on the 8 dynamics as seen through the eyes of Scientology Int Management. There were actually 3 assessments, one from the viewpoint of the public, one from the viewpoint of Sea Org Staff and one from the viewpoint of Int Management. I found the results in my archives.

FOR PUBLIC
1st Dynamic F
2nd Dynamic LFBD
3rd Dynamic F
4th Dynamic F
5th Dynamic F
6th Dynamic F
7th Dynamic F
8th Dynamic SF

FOR SEA ORG STAFF
1st Dynamic tick
2nd Dynamic R/S (Rock Slam)
3rd Dynamic LFBD
4th Dynamic LF
5th Dynamic nul
6th Dynamic nul
7th Dynamic sf
8th Dynamic sf

FOR INT MANAGEMENT
1ST Dynamic LF
2nd Dynamic tick
3rd Dynamic LF
4th Dynamic sf
5th Dynamic tick
6th Dynamic LFBD (Floating TA)
7th Dynamic tick
8th Dynamic nul (they are it so it produces no read)

Lakey
 
Last edited:

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Yeah know, Z, in the name of full disclosure you might want to include in your sig line that you are a long term critic with absolutely NO personal experience, either "good" or "bad", with the tech of scientology.

Wouldn't want to mislead people with your comments now, would you? :whistling:


Mark A. Baker

what does that have to do with the word evidence?

Shouldn't matter if one was in or out or never there - there is NO evidence.

Just because somebody was stupid enough to fall for the moronic bullshit that Hubbard conned us all with doesn't make them qualified to pass judgement on scientology.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
I suppose we are all entitled to our opinion.
Maybe I should change my remark regarding the policy on The Anti Social Personality to "within the framework of LRHs writing on the Anti Social Personality Miscaviage and Starkey would be canditates on what he was writing about".

Of course a lot of people left scientology from the early days, many of them died and many drifted off to get on with their lives.

As an auditor on the lower levels I have seen people make gains as I myself did. The state of clear and especially the OT levels are a load of nonsense including OT 8, absolutely so.

You maybe one who does not believe in spirituality but go along the materialist line of thinking. But LRH did introduce spirituality to a western world that was sadly lacking in knowledge on spirituality, a subject very rich in the East. There are scientists now who are busy researching the subject of spirituality and presenting their findings. Such things as the The Secret came long after. Napoleon Hill's book "Think & Grow Rich" is a best seller and is based on spirituality.The Sea Org was not a good place to be I would agree with you.

Today we live in a world ruled by politicians based on materialism with an economics based on materialism. More than half the population of the world are starving because they cannot take part in this economics. War is based on materialism. The current global economic meltdown is based on materialist economics. Pollution of our planet is based on materialist economics.

The basics of scientology such as the 8 dynamics, the ARC triangle, the tone scale - what may I ask do you find fault with that.

the ARC triangle? Have you actually ever really contemplated it? It is total tripe. as a moments thought will show you. the tone scale? An arbitrary list dreamed up by hubbard that does - well nothing. The 8 dynamics? Again - stuff dreamed up out of thin air.

if you find it useful then good luck to you.

glad to know that it is OK with you that i have my own opinions.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Is that the God equivalent for aetheists now?

Well, Lexmark, from what I can see here, you triggered a whole bunch of stuff when you gave the smallest bit of credit to LRH. And, unfortunately, all of that triggered resentment and rage got transferred to you. But, hold on. Pretty soon someone else will give a bit of praise, then you will be off the hook. Let us hope it is very, very soon - and pity the next poor bastard who says something the least bit positive about LRH or Scientology.

Meanwhile, may the universal random number generator favor you.

I already praised Lexmark a few posts back in case you missed it. Is "the universal random number generator" the equivalent for God for Aetheists? If so, it is a very well chosen term.
Lakey
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
what does that have to do with the word evidence?

Shouldn't matter if one was in or out or never there - there is NO evidence.

No evidence is prima facie, axiomatic, de facto, self-evident, incontrovertible proof (as Ron has patiently been trying to teach you humans), that Life and Operating Thetans are basically a Static without mass, motion, location or wavelength.

If there was any evidence of an OT in the physical universe, it wouldn't be true. It's the complete absence of evidence that proves OT is real.

God, you homo sap are so friggin dense!
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
what does that have to do with the word evidence?

Shouldn't matter if one was in or out or never there - there is NO evidence.

Just because somebody was stupid enough to fall for the moronic bullshit that Hubbard conned us all with doesn't make them qualified to pass judgement on scientology.

To be fair, if I was claiming 'experience' in the Cult, it might be a something I should reveal and I should blush when I'm exposed as never having been in.

As far as I know, I've never claimed any such thing and most people who have been around me for longer than 3 minutes know that. I've also never been in the Sea Org. That should be obvious if I wasn't in the 'Cult', but, maybe I should specify.

Iv'e explained my own involvement many times here on ESMB and even more times on ARS before here. I admit, I don't constantly repeat it. I should probably put up a webpage with my 'statement'. It's not hard to find things out about me though and I've *never* claimed to having been a member or even a Sea Orger.

When I did get involved in Scientology criticism there were very *few* exes. Most of the people I knew were 'never beens'. It wasn't an issue. Thankfully, times have changed and, thanks to the efforts of those exes who took the risk and the never-beens who were willing to offer themselves up as targets to the still unmitigated 'power' of the fucking bug-shit-crazy UFO Cult, it's become easier for exes to 'come out'.

I'm glad about that. Anonymous would not exist except for 50 years of prior art. The current situation would not exist except for hundreds of people willing to risk their lives in lonely opposition to a moloch that outgunned them, outflanked them, owned the stage and the media and the powers that be, but, did it anyway.

When I became a Scientology Critic around 1995 I had some knowledge of Scientology, but more knowledge of cults in general and I was a newbie who didn't know shit really and I was flabbergasted at the courage of the people who were already there. The Exes were there. Some few, and, they were *essential* because, nobody would have had any information without them. And, the never-beens were there too. For no good reason beyond their unwillingness to put up with the kind of school-yard bullying tactics that Scientology specializes in.

Neither could have functioned without the other.

Zinj
 
Top