Why I am glad Scientology doesn't work.

Why I am glad Scientology doesn't work.

I used to think "too bad it doesn't work, things would be a lot better if it did work."

Now II have long since realized that it is a good thing that Scientology doesn't work.

And here is why:

Scientology purports to make beings more able to accomplish their goals.

It promises to make OTs who are at total cause.

It gives the those OTs "intention without reservation or limit."

It has an ethics system design to fulfill the goals and actions of those more able beings.

Okay. but there is no margin for goodness, kindness, love, humility, trust, compassion.

It sounds like Nietzsche's "Superman" and Will to Power, and Master/slave morality.

"Good" in Scientology is what furthers the pro-survival goals of an OT.

The greatest good is that which helps that OT in all his aspects in life.

"Good" in Scientology, is not defined by anything which relates to moral wholeness or human interaction.

"Good" in Scientology only relates to effectiveness at serving a purpose or goal.

I suppose one could argue then that Scientology does work to a degree; it does produce people with varying degrees of this--Miscavige, the guy in Denver who killed his accountant, Reed Slatkin, Narconon centers, et cetera.

But for the rest of us this won't work, it can't work, it mustn't work.

Civilization went through this before in the 1930s and 1940s, and it took almost the entirety of the rest of the world to fight it.

I guess that is why European countries are a little bit more sensitive to Scientology; they saw a similar idea gradually grow among them until it nearly took over them all.

If you think comparing Scientology to fascism or the Nazi is too much, then just compare Scientology to Scientology itself.

It ain't Disneyland.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
It's kinda interesting to me too, TAJ. I doubt that anybody would really disagree with the main thrust of The Aims Of Scientology as written by Hubbard. The real question remains , how is scientology ever going to achieve those aims? Certainly not by doing what it routinely does.
 

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
At what point do those still IN scientology see it? I understand the traps El Wrong Hubbard set within the Cult of Scientology - but does anyone IN ever think .... where is the freedom? How come I constantly feel like shit but I have been trained to pretend I feel great? Where are the Clears and Oat Tea's - they seem so fucked up? Why is my Ideal Org building sitting vacant - nothing has changed except we now have to work even harder to get people in here - WHY IS NO ONE COMING IN?? There has to be a WHY? The Psychs? SP's? come on...:whistling:

It is horrible to be in the cult of Scientology - just the worst place to be and I was not even trapped on staff or in the Sea Org - How do they endure day after day after day?

What will be the next tipping point for a slew of people to leave like the ones who did when Debbie Cook sent out her e-mail or are they leaving in droves but not going public right now....too afraid...the threats of punishment must be at an all time high in the cult. That is how they control....threats threats threats~! :nervous:
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
What few people realise is that there were two Rons. He had an evil twin, one wrote fluffy ideas, warm hearted good PR, loved by lots of people, and his twin who hated the world and all who lived there. He screamed and shouted, threw people overboard, he screwed everything up and sat quietly giggling at our attempts to make policy and tech work, laughed out loud at new green staff members struggling to understand remimeo and the 1960's Org Boards so they could pass KSW1. There were at least two Ronnies, I can see no other possibility as to why something could appear like a good idea from one angle but looked like a sewage farm from a slightly different one.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
What few people realise is that there were two Rons. He had an evil twin, one wrote fluffy ideas, warm hearted good PR, loved by lots of people, and his twin who hated the world and all who lived there. He screamed and shouted, threw people overboard, he screwed everything up and sat quietly giggling at our attempts to make policy and tech work, laughed out loud at new green staff members struggling to understand remimeo and the 1960's Org Boards so they could pass KSW1. There were at least two Ronnies, I can see no other possibility as to why something could appear like a good idea from one angle but looked like a sewage farm from a slightly different one.

That is because he intentionally inserted various "good ideas" and "truths" into the subject to act as lures and bait.

There was only one Ronnie, and he was ALL BAD.

Hubbard came up with the idea of ARC. Part of using this idea is to pad a comm line with things the reader can AGREE WITH. This gets them agreeing. Put things there that the person can like and have admiration for. When Hubbard states the goals of Scientology, he simply surveyed (by looking around at) his fellow Man, found some hot buttons (help, no war, no crime, etc.), and SAID that THAT was Scientology. These things never had anything to do with Scientology, but Hubbard (always the fiction writer) simply asserted these to be the goals of this thing called Scientology.

It is the "ruin-finding drill" really. Hubbard asks the reader what is wrong, what is horrible, and what is bad. And then once you agree with what is wrong, he says, "Scientology can handle that". It is a ROTE DRILL. That is all. It is a mechanism of control. A hidden slant to all Scientology is that it takes the view that it can handle ANYTHING on any dynamic. Again, Hubbard simply states that "Scientology is the study of life". There is no proof. There is no history to support this statement, but he gets others to agree with the idea - and it becomes real for them.

It is like listing in auditing. The auditor asks questions and gets the preclear to tell him or her WHAT the item is. Then, once told, the auditor gives it back to you - "this is your item". Hubbard does this with ideas all throughout his books and writings.

One really needs to understand what Hubbard was talking about when he discussed postulates, agreement and reality. In his view, ANYTHING could be "truth" as long as somebody postulated it (said so unequivocally), and got others to strongly agree. A large part of Scientology involves just that sequence. First, Hubbard simply asserts some "fact". He states something as being true. He says so with total Tone 40. And then second, he gets others to agree - and THAT becomes "reality" for the people who agree. It is that simple.

For example, Paulette Cooper never sent a bomb threat to the FBI, but Hubbard and his goons tried to CREATE THAT ILLUSION and would have gotten others to agree if it hadn't been for the FBI raid in DC. The truth was that she was innocent. But for Ronnie and Scientologists, if they could get others to AGREE that she DID send in the bomb threat, then THAT became the new "truth" (except it was a lie).

If you pick up almost any LRH book, you will notice that he always first slips in things that just about any person can agree with. He "greases the comm line". This puts the reader into a state of mind where he or she is agreeing, liking and going with whatever Hubbard is saying. This agreement has a sort of momentum, or inertia of its own. Once the reader is happily agreeing with some "nice" or "obvious fact", Hubbard them slips in the Bullshit.

Hubbard states a great many things. For example, he wrote about Personal Integrity, and correctly pointed out that it is best for a person to accept as true whatever on has OBSERVED through personal experience. Of course, he has ZERO intention that anybody apply this idea if it involves honestly observing Hubbard or the Church of Scientology. See? It is a nice idea that is thrown into the mix, to get further agreement for the WHOLE PACKAGE DEAL.

Hubbard states that Scientology supports the free speech of all people. He just SAYS IT. He puts it in a book, in a policy or in a graphic in a frame on a wall, but in fact, THAT is NOT the reality of life in Scientology. They actually work very hard to suppress free speech when it involves facts they don't want known about Hubbard or Scientology.

Personally, I think Hubbard KNEW that he was inserting various good and nice ideas within the larger subject to act as BAIT. I mean who can disagree with making a world without war, crime and insanity? Nobody (unless you are nuts). Then he goes off and states over and over that "Scientology wants and can bring that about". It is a LIE. He simply POSTULATED the datum, and got others to agree with him. But, it was MAKE BELIEVE. It was a fiction. This involves hypnotism using ideas. Hubbard was a slick con artist.
 
Last edited:

OhMG

Patron Meritorious
There were at least two Ronnies, I can see no other possibility as to why something could appear like a good idea from one angle but looked like a sewage farm from a slightly different one.


That's only because you have little to no experience in dealing with criminals. He was simply a very intelligent one. Thus, he was good at setting and maintaining the trap he created.
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
That is because he intentionally inserted various "good ideas" and "truths" into the subject to act as lures and bait.

There was only one Ronnie, and he was ALL BAD.

Hubbard came up with the idea of ARC. Part of using this idea is to pad a comm line with things the reader can AGREE WITH. This gets them agreeing. Put things there that the person can like and have admiration for. When Hubbard states the goals of Scientology, he simply surveyed (by looking around at) his fellow Man, found some hot buttons (help, no war, no crime, etc.), and SAID that THAT was Scientology. These things never had anything to do with Scientology, but Hubbard (always the fiction writer) simply asserted these to be the goals of this thing called Scientology.

It is the "ruin-finding drill" really. Hubbard asks the reader what is wrong, what is horrible, and what is bad. And then once you agree with what is wrong, he says, "Scientology can handle that". It is a ROTE DRILL. That is all. It is a mechanism of control. A hidden slant to all Scientology is that it takes the view that it can handle ANYTHING on any dynamic. Again, Hubbard simply states that "Scientology is the study of life". There is no proof. There is no history to support this statement, but he gets others to agree with the idea - and it becomes real for them.

It is like listing in auditing. The auditor asks questions and gets the preclear to tell him or her WHAT the item is. Then, once told, the auditor gives it back to you - "this is your item". Hubbard does this with ideas all throughout his books and writings.

One really needs to understand what Hubbard was talking about when he discussed postulates, agreement and reality. In his view, ANYTHING could be "truth" as long as somebody postulated it (said so unequivocally), and got others to strongly agree. A large part of Scientology involves just that sequence. First, Hubbard simply asserts some "fact". He states something as being true. He says so with total Tone 40. And then second, he gets others to agree - and THAT becomes "reality" for the people who agree. It is that simple.

For example, Paulette Cooper never sent a bomb threat to the FBI, but Hubbard and his goons tried to CREATE THAT ILLUSION and would have gotten others to agree if it hadn't been for the FBI raid in DC. The truth was that she was innocent. But for Ronnie and Scientologists, if they could get others to AGREE that she DID send in the bomb threat, then THAT became the new "truth" (except it was a lie).

If you pick up almost any LRH book, you will notice that he always first slips in things that just about any person can agree with. He "greases the comm line". This puts the reader into a state of mind where he or she is agreeing, liking and going with whatever Hubbard is saying. This agreement has a sort of momentum, or inertia of its own. Once the reader is happily agreeing with some "nice" or "obvious fact", Hubbard them slips in the Bullshit.

Hubbard states a great many things. For example, he wrote about Personal Integrity, and correctly pointed out that it is best for a person to accept as true whatever on has OBSERVED through personal experience. Of course, he has ZERO intention that anybody apply this idea if it involves honestly observing Hubbard or the Church of Scientology. See? It is a nice idea that is thrown into the mix, to get further agreement for the WHOLE PACKAGE DEAL.

Hubbard states that Scientology supports the free speech of all people. He just SAYS IT. He puts it in a book, in a policy or in a graphic in a frame on a wall, but in fact, THAT is NOT the reality of life in Scientology. They actually work very hard to suppress free speech when it involves facts they don't want known about Hubbard or Scientology.

Personally, I think Hubbard KNEW that he was inserting various good and nice ideas within the larger subject to act as BAIT. I mean who can disagree with making a world without war, crime and insanity? Nobody (unless you are nuts). Then he goes off and states over and over that "Scientology wants and can bring that about". It is a LIE. He simply POSTULATED the datum, and got others to agree with him. But, it was MAKE BELIEVE. It was a fiction. This involves hypnotism using ideas. Hubbard was a slick con artist.

Yep I knew it all along. Hubbo had these secret hidden fantasies that although he did not express them in all of the tech and policies and activities that he carried out he surrepticously shed his true colors for all to see whether he wanted it to or not.

That sunnuva...

What a 1.1 bastiche!!

Rd00
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
That is because he intentionally inserted various "good ideas" and "truths" into the subject to act as lures and bait.

There was only one Ronnie, and he was ALL BAD.

Hubbard came up with the idea of ARC. Part of using this idea is to pad a comm line with things the reader can AGREE WITH. This gets them agreeing. Put things there that the person can like and have admiration for. When Hubbard states the goals of Scientology, he simply surveyed (by looking around at) his fellow Man, found some hot buttons (help, no war, no crime, etc.), and SAID that THAT was Scientology. These things never had anything to do with Scientology, but Hubbard (always the fiction writer) simply asserted these to be the goals of this thing called Scientology.

It is the "ruin-finding drill" really. Hubbard asks the reader what is wrong, what is horrible, and what is bad. And then once you agree with what is wrong, he says, "Scientology can handle that". It is a ROTE DRILL. That is all. It is a mechanism of control. A hidden slant to all Scientology is that it takes the view that it can handle ANYTHING on any dynamic. Again, Hubbard simply states that "Scientology is the study of life". There is no proof. There is no history to support this statement, but he gets others to agree with the idea - and it becomes real for them.

It is like listing in auditing. The auditor asks questions and gets the preclear to tell him or her WHAT the item is. Then, once told, the auditor gives it back to you - "this is your item". Hubbard does this with ideas all throughout his books and writings.

One really needs to understand what Hubbard was talking about when he discussed postulates, agreement and reality. In his view, ANYTHING could be "truth" as long as somebody postulated it (said so unequivocally), and got others to strongly agree. A large part of Scientology involves just that sequence. First, Hubbard simply asserts some "fact". He states something as being true. He says so with total Tone 40. And then second, he gets others to agree - and THAT becomes "reality" for the people who agree. It is that simple.

For example, Paulette Cooper never sent a bomb threat to the FBI, but Hubbard and his goons tried to CREATE THAT ILLUSION and would have gotten others to agree if it hadn't been for the FBI raid in DC. The truth was that she was innocent. But for Ronnie and Scientologists, if they could get others to AGREE that she DID send in the bomb threat, then THAT became the new "truth" (except it was a lie).

If you pick up almost any LRH book, you will notice that he always first slips in things that just about any person can agree with. He "greases the comm line". This puts the reader into a state of mind where he or she is agreeing, liking and going with whatever Hubbard is saying. This agreement has a sort of momentum, or inertia of its own. Once the reader is happily agreeing with some "nice" or "obvious fact", Hubbard them slips in the Bullshit.

Hubbard states a great many things. For example, he wrote about Personal Integrity, and correctly pointed out that it is best for a person to accept as true whatever on has OBSERVED through personal experience. Of course, he has ZERO intention that anybody apply this idea if it involves honestly observing Hubbard or the Church of Scientology. See? It is a nice idea that is thrown into the mix, to get further agreement for the WHOLE PACKAGE DEAL.

Hubbard states that Scientology supports the free speech of all people. He just SAYS IT. He puts it in a book, in a policy or in a graphic in a frame on a wall, but in fact, THAT is NOT the reality of life in Scientology. They actually work very hard to suppress free speech when it involves facts they don't want known about Hubbard or Scientology.

Personally, I think Hubbard KNEW that he was inserting various good and nice ideas within the larger subject to act as BAIT. I mean who can disagree with making a world without war, crime and insanity? Nobody (unless you are nuts). Then he goes off and states over and over that "Scientology wants and can bring that about". It is a LIE. He simply POSTULATED the datum, and got others to agree with him. But, it was MAKE BELIEVE. It was a fiction. This involves hypnotism using ideas. Hubbard was a slick con artist.


Yes!

Thanks, it makes more sense now. He was a lone evil twin.
 
It's kinda interesting to me too, TAJ. I doubt that anybody would really disagree with the main thrust of The Aims Of Scientology as written by Hubbard. The real question remains , how is scientology ever going to achieve those aims? Certainly not by doing what it routinely does.

you might think this a bit odd coming from someone who speaks so well of auditing pando but no, i never accepted the aims. i recognized them as neither attainable or desirable from the gitgo. they are utopian aims and i am too well familiar with last century's anti utopian trilogy; 1924's "We" by evgeny zamyatin, huxley's 1938 "brave gnu world" and eric blair's mirror image of '48

the aims are a witch's gingerbread house in a very dark forest

jesus!

did that spurious document fool everyone?
 
That is because he intentionally inserted various "good ideas" and "truths" into the subject to act as lures and bait.

There was only one Ronnie, and he was ALL BAD.

Hubbard came up with the idea of ARC. Part of using this idea is to pad a comm line with things the reader can AGREE WITH. This gets them agreeing. Put things there that the person can like and have admiration for. When Hubbard states the goals of Scientology, he simply surveyed (by looking around at) his fellow Man, found some hot buttons (help, no war, no crime, etc.), and SAID that THAT was Scientology. These things never had anything to do with Scientology, but Hubbard (always the fiction writer) simply asserted these to be the goals of this thing called Scientology.

It is the "ruin-finding drill" really. Hubbard asks the reader what is wrong, what is horrible, and what is bad. And then once you agree with what is wrong, he says, "Scientology can handle that". It is a ROTE DRILL. That is all. It is a mechanism of control. A hidden slant to all Scientology is that it takes the view that it can handle ANYTHING on any dynamic. Again, Hubbard simply states that "Scientology is the study of life". There is no proof. There is no history to support this statement, but he gets others to agree with the idea - and it becomes real for them.

It is like listing in auditing. The auditor asks questions and gets the preclear to tell him or her WHAT the item is. Then, once told, the auditor gives it back to you - "this is your item". Hubbard does this with ideas all throughout his books and writings.

One really needs to understand what Hubbard was talking about when he discussed postulates, agreement and reality. In his view, ANYTHING could be "truth" as long as somebody postulated it (said so unequivocally), and got others to strongly agree. A large part of Scientology involves just that sequence. First, Hubbard simply asserts some "fact". He states something as being true. He says so with total Tone 40. And then second, he gets others to agree - and THAT becomes "reality" for the people who agree. It is that simple.

For example, Paulette Cooper never sent a bomb threat to the FBI, but Hubbard and his goons tried to CREATE THAT ILLUSION and would have gotten others to agree if it hadn't been for the FBI raid in DC. The truth was that she was innocent. But for Ronnie and Scientologists, if they could get others to AGREE that she DID send in the bomb threat, then THAT became the new "truth" (except it was a lie).

If you pick up almost any LRH book, you will notice that he always first slips in things that just about any person can agree with. He "greases the comm line". This puts the reader into a state of mind where he or she is agreeing, liking and going with whatever Hubbard is saying. This agreement has a sort of momentum, or inertia of its own. Once the reader is happily agreeing with some "nice" or "obvious fact", Hubbard them slips in the Bullshit.

Hubbard states a great many things. For example, he wrote about Personal Integrity, and correctly pointed out that it is best for a person to accept as true whatever on has OBSERVED through personal experience. Of course, he has ZERO intention that anybody apply this idea if it involves honestly observing Hubbard or the Church of Scientology. See? It is a nice idea that is thrown into the mix, to get further agreement for the WHOLE PACKAGE DEAL.

Hubbard states that Scientology supports the free speech of all people. He just SAYS IT. He puts it in a book, in a policy or in a graphic in a frame on a wall, but in fact, THAT is NOT the reality of life in Scientology. They actually work very hard to suppress free speech when it involves facts they don't want known about Hubbard or Scientology.

Personally, I think Hubbard KNEW that he was inserting various good and nice ideas within the larger subject to act as BAIT. I mean who can disagree with making a world without war, crime and insanity? Nobody (unless you are nuts). Then he goes off and states over and over that "Scientology wants and can bring that about". It is a LIE. He simply POSTULATED the datum, and got others to agree with him. But, it was MAKE BELIEVE. It was a fiction. This involves hypnotism using ideas. Hubbard was a slick con artist.

the fellow was referred to a higher court more than a quarter century in the past GF. and i am not about to try to judge him and scripture recommends you to do the same
 
What few people realise is that there were two Rons. He had an evil twin, one wrote fluffy ideas, warm hearted good PR, loved by lots of people, and his twin who hated the world and all who lived there. He screamed and shouted, threw people overboard, he screwed everything up and sat quietly giggling at our attempts to make policy and tech work, laughed out loud at new green staff members struggling to understand remimeo and the 1960's Org Boards so they could pass KSW1. There were at least two Ronnies, I can see no other possibility as to why something could appear like a good idea from one angle but looked like a sewage farm from a slightly different one.

i got no problem with the screaming shouting and throwing people overboard

try BCT sometime sweetheart
 

Reasonable

Silver Meritorious Patron
I wish Scientology did work.

When I first thought of a wonderful scientology run world I thought the powerful OT's would understand that for themselves to be stable they would have to be kind and help those who were not OT and were on the way up.

I even think Hubbard wrote some of these things such as "Ignore people at your own peril"

I thought we would take the insane and let them recover in a green pasture with rest and light auditing...not the scapegoated, mocked and put into the RPF

I thought it was about fairness and looking out for the good of all. As it turns out Scientology is about looking out for yourself and convincing others that looking out for you is good for them.

It is sales and it is simply a mix of capitalism and fascism where the government Scientology.

The Hubbard writing are the law and the Sea Org execs are the lawyers, bending and twisting the laws to their own special interests.

We use these laws to justify our actions just as in regular society.

Even in regular society we have some good laws, if the laws were used in the spirit of greatest good and fairness; but people, politicians and lawyers just use the law to justify their own actions.

The difference with scientology is that the AUDITING was supposed to make people so logical that each one on his own would know instinctively the right thing to do and individually would act on the "greatest good for all" premise. The only way to fix the group is to fix the individual.

I still believe that is true, IF you fixed the individual you would fix the group.

So I would like it if Scientology worked because if it did then people and groups would be saner but they are not...especially the group of Scientology.
 

clamicide

Gold Meritorious Patron
Scientology did work... a little bit. As far as the tech, enough to give someone a bit of a win where they thought perhaps they found what they'd been looking for after however long. If they didn't get any result at all, then they wouldn't be able to sucker folks. And Scientology definitely works in how it performs thought-reform, but I know that's not what you meant.:p. However, it the cult hadn't aced this, it wouldn't be able to drag folks into believing the entire OT dream off the intro wins.
 

Freeminds

Bitter defrocked apostate
the fellow was referred to a higher court more than a quarter century in the past GF. and i am not about to try to judge him and scripture recommends you to do the same

Crimes are still being committed in the name of Scientology and its lunatic author. Just because he escaped justice through death doesn't mean that the threat ended at the same time. We need to learn from the history of Hubbard and his empire, before it all disappears.

The people who knew LRH are getting old, and they're dying out, too. Scientology itself is dying out. Now is the time to go on the record, just as some people have done so well in this thread. They're telling us about what a dirty old bastard L Ron Hubbard was, and how his lies worked to enslave people. Fifty years from now, nobody will understand Hubbardism, the same way we don't really understand why primitive people had a god of the hunt, or a god of the sea.

Hubbard tried to be the god of lies, and that seems no more useful or logical, to a person who wasn't hypnotised by him, or his minions... but if we understand more about the mental illness called Scientology, we may be able to prevent its like breaking out again.
 

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
you might think this a bit odd coming from someone who speaks so well of auditing pando but no, i never accepted the aims. i recognized them as neither attainable or desirable from the gitgo. they are utopian aims and i am too well familiar with last century's anti utopian trilogy; 1924's "We" by evgeny zamyatin, huxley's 1938 "brave gnu world" and eric blair's mirror image of '48

the aims are a witch's gingerbread house in a very dark forest

jesus!

The "aims" appeal to the good in people - it is the "cheese". Scientology is rigged with traps and he even tells you about the traps - "never mix money with religion" for instance. HUBBARD was behind the money - raking it in. He lies and manipulates then traps! Sea Org contracts for $1 billion years, family disconnect if you leave w/o getting conned some more, spiritual eternity fucked if you leave or speak out against the commodupe.

Hubbard was a con - a crazy mad man that wanted to start a religion and was willing to die to be right...and he did. He hid for 15 years - slowly decaying and at the end - he realized he failed!

He was a loser and all that money and Hip Hip Hooraying - could not bring Tubby back together again....Total Failure and a nothing!
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Of course. The problem is that most scientolgists actually believe the CofS is genuinely striving to achieve those Aims Of Scientology. They agree with and hope to, some day, realise those Aims. That's just one of the reasons they're still there, striving away.
 
Last edited:

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
This seems to be a bit of a tautology. I'm glad it doesn't work because it doesn't work.

A characteristic of enlightened individuals is a high regard for others. You can't gain an expanded being/conscious without recognizing the connectedness of all things. This superman mentality just doesn't fly in the face of increased consciousness.

Certainly movies have villains such as Darth Vader who seem to have this expanded spiritual ability. The dark side. And we have the notion of the Devil in Christianity to explain away all the bad things in life. But selfishness is ultimately self-defeating. Your sense of being and consciousness ultimately shrinks back on itself without appreciating others and working to expand their abilities, which includes the intention to improve the quality of their lives.

At some point, I realized that the most selfish thing I could do would be to give all I could to improve the lives of others. If the world around me is miserable, then the misery vibrations can't help but affect my life. The quality of your environment will always affect the quality of your experience in that environment.

And others are part of that environment.

The contemplation of optimal survival is a good thing. That Hubbard twisted it to mean that because Scientology was the ultimate good then only actions that furthered Scientology were ethical does not gainsay the merit of the original premise. Ethical behavior considers the well being of everyone and everything.

The greatest good for the greatest number has been misunderstood to mean the subtraction of good from some so that others might take that subtraction as an addition to their own well being. It's a negative sum equation. Take, take, take.

But, the greatest good is always expanding. You are constantly adding to the benefit of all. It's not a matter of taking from Peter to pay Paul; but rather creating enough so that both Paul and Peter have more.

If I were to wish anything about Scientology it would be that Hubbard had been sane instead of a pathological liar and a sociopath. Maybe he could have admitted when he was wrong and not lied about what we could expect.

(ps: trying to think or post with a spouse streaming problems, problems, problems about things that you aren't even involved with certainly makes concentration difficult. Had I only done those drills to increase my attention span.)
 
you might think this a bit odd coming from someone who speaks so well of auditing pando but no, i never accepted the aims. i recognized them as neither attainable or desirable from the gitgo. they are utopian aims and i am too well familiar with last century's anti utopian trilogy; 1924's "We" by evgeny zamyatin, huxley's 1938 "brave gnu world" and eric blair's mirror image of '48

the aims are a witch's gingerbread house in a very dark forest

jesus!

The "aims" appeal to the good in people - it is the "cheese". Scientology is rigged with traps and he even tells you about the traps - "never mix money with religion" for instance. HUBBARD was behind the money - raking it in. He lies and manipulates then traps! Sea Org contracts for $1 billion years, family disconnect if you leave w/o getting conned some more, spiritual eternity fucked if you leave or speak out against the commodupe.

Hubbard was a con - a crazy mad man that wanted to start a religion and was willing to die to be right...and he did. He hid for 15 years - slowly decaying and at the end - he realized he failed!

He was a loser and all that money and Hip Hip Hooraying - could not bring Tubby back together again....Total Failure and a nothing!

i don't know what hubbard was IM

it is my personal experience that auditing and auditor training are very good things

i know you got a bunch of bucks squeezed out of you for nothing. that wasn't how it was done back in the day. auditing and training were sold at fair market prices and the org i was at prospered doing that.

i've seen the video introducing GAT and it made my jaw drop. CoS no longer even understands auditing and training. and they don't seem to want to listen to anyone who does. so they smile and laugh and spin tales of smoke and mirrors and get people like you to give them $
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
i don't know what hubbard was IM

it is my personal experience that auditing and auditor training are very good things

i know you got a bunch of bucks squeezed out of you for nothing. that wasn't how it was done back in the day. auditing and training were sold at fair market prices and the org i was at prospered doing that.

i've seen the video introducing GAT and it made my jaw drop. CoS no longer even understands auditing and training. and they don't seem to want to listen to anyone who does. so they smile and laugh and spin tales of smoke and mirrors and get people like you to give them $

Back in the day... at FCDC... hmmm, I guess you don't remember the crush regging of the time period you have stated you were there (72-74)? Keeping people locked in a reg cycle until they paid big. Perhaps you were up in the academy or back in the HGC and missed that. FCDC didn't prosper for very long. By 1975 it was in the dumps and has been ever since. I was on staff in 76, 79, 83 there. I saw what it was like. I lived it.

I can't say now that auditing and training are a good thing. It's hard for me to say even that the auditing I had, which I enjoyed and thought was good for me, was really ultimately beneficial. One could argue that I just didn't get enough auditing, but having done the grades, next stop was OT level land and having studied those levels thoroughly now, I can't say that I see any road out in that direction.

The problem with scientology training is that it is training you in a very proscribed knowledge set. While many things that one learns about the mind may be true, the problem lies with Hubbard's assertion that THIS is the ONLY way. You are channeled into Hubbard's mental constructs. His views, his solutions. And while you are getting this training you are being subjected to his cult environment. Being made into a "true believer". Believing that you have in your hands THE SOLUTION when in fact you don't have any such thing. The best I can say about the "tech" is that it is woefully incomplete. It's like going to school to learn how to build FTL space ships but when you get out you find that really you only know how to build high explosive rockets.
 

Techless

Patron Meritorious
Interesting question and thread. Been thinking about before trying to even respond...

I actually am not glad that it doesn't work. In hindsite - and which is always 20/20 - I don't think anyone, who got in, did so with the idea that it was a big fail, but really a hope for a better future.
So it's really a sad thing that it turned out to be so completely bogus - and with all the initial, infinite sunshine blasted up yer butt.

Many things I've found are based upon and started, with ideas of hope being the primary premise. Many are good, not sure if many more are bad, or what?!?! But I do believe that a 'wish' for things better: for me, you, our kids, etc...is as basic to human life as carbon and DNA I suppose. A 'good' thing! (I'm refusing to even begin to use any well-known words or concepts - as in some other threads playing out here - or to even go into that topic any further)

I firmly believe it doesn't work, and to discuss it with the ideas you've been conned by, is like trying to discuss war, without any realization that in them: death occurs....

I think now, what's hardest for me is to have 'found out' that it is/was all BullS-. And I'm having hard time now with the old-timers who keep saying: "it wasn't anywhere 'near' as bad back in the day", bla, bla. Well: it was, all along, leading towards the big Fu-up that it is today, so in my mind, the past doesn't excuse any possible notion of any part of it being 'good'....and also why I don't believe that it'll ever get back on it's feet. At least under current name and 'smell'.

But I am certain, that another version of the con is, has been/is being created again and all along. Just a different name and smell. This seems a favorite mission always and forever, of some portion of the human population.

But hopefully I am not taken the wrong way here! I am also glad that it doesn't work and is failing miserably - as it needs to very badly and not ever soon enough. The 'those still in' factor still haunts the crap outta me every day. And it has completely surpassed my pea-brains ability in trying to understand that whole thing. Yes, of course it's brainwash, (Scn) and hey: ya get to pull off whatever shit you can when you got 'em brainwashed right?

But that whole 'science' has been being used since time began, so Scn doesn't get the monopoly on that, very sorry to say.

I sill have a hard time sometimes, seeing it's long-term effects, being played out here, by otherwise good folks. I mean some of the threads going on...WTF? But I guess you'll get this when there are still those who are out...but not really yet disconnected. I know that's like one of the bigger evil 'words' and concepts in Scn...but it's really, really a good thing,when you can use it to separate your head, from the mindf&*k you have experienced...no matter how big or small it was.

Sorry, I used a 'word'. But lets try and turn their evil meaning and intentions around, and make them good things! That would be a big blow to all things Scn - don'y ya think??

I mean: kill the 'vocabulary' - make it useless -like other dead human languages, sanskrit or whatever...

Cheers all!
TL
 
Top