Skip to content

“I don’t know why I couldn’t see it”

February 9, 2011
Bag

One of the most telling comments by Paul Haggis in the recent New Yorker article was this one: “Everyone else could see it. I don’t know why I couldn’t.”

It’s a question a lot of us have asked once we leave Scientology. “Why didn’t I see what was going on?”

In an interview today with NPR’s Terry Gross, Larry Wright was asked what impact he thought his article would have on Scientologists.  His reply was very perceptive:

“It’s hard to measure, because we’re dealing with a religion,” he said, “and people are drawn to it because of faith. And if it were simply a matter of reason, then one could put this [document about Hubbard's service] down in front of you and say, ‘Here is conclusive proof that the founder of Scientology lied about his military record and lied about his injuries and lied about the fundamental principles out of which he created the Church of Scientology.’ But that may not matter to people who are involved in it, who may feel they are gaining something from their experience — either because they feel like the truths of Scientology enhance their lives or because the community of Scientologists that they live among is something like their family. So they intentionally shield themselves from knowing these types of things.”

They intentionally shield themselves. It’s an interesting way to put it. It really is a willful blindness.

As Orwell pointed out  in his novel 1984, “mind control” isn’t really someone else controlling your thoughts, it’s you learning to control your own thoughts according to the group’s dictates. Members are expected to filter their perceptions, thoughts and attitudes through an ideological framework. And they do. Why? Because, as Wright points out, they value the community. They value the professed ideals of Scientology, the stated goals, the promised gains.

So if anything challenges their faith, their religion, they just won’t listen. They won’t look. And they have plenty of ready-made mechanisms that help them to do that:

If information comes from the Church or its leadership, for instance, it’s always true and good.

If it comes from those labeled by the Church as “enemies,” it’s always false and bad.

Anything critical of the Church is “entheta.”

Anyone critical of the Church “has overts.”

And those mechanisms snap into place as soon as they sniff anything that might challenge their beliefs, their faith, their protected bubble.

In can be frustrating. Because they simply will not look. They will not listen.

But more and more are looking.

And discovering the facts. And once they actually look at the information and confront the facts, they usually have the same thing to say:

“I don’t know why I couldn’t see it.”

About these ads
93 Comments
  1. Tim permalink
    February 9, 2011 6:03 am

    I always look forward to your posts Jeff. You’re a great writer.

  2. plainoldthetan permalink
    February 9, 2011 6:08 am

    When I look at the overall situation, I see people that made a decision that they thought was good. If they now look at the situation, and allow for there to be truth in it, they they are, in effect saying, “I WAS WRONG”. But there are liabilities inherent in that, as LRH pointed out.

    I’d love to cite the chapter “You Can Be Right” from A NEW SLANT ON LIFE, but lo! that chapter is no longer in A NEW SLANT ON LIFE.

    So I’ll have to cite from HCOB 22 July 1963 (VII:232).

    The answer lies in an impulse, inborn in everyone, to try to be right. This is an insistence which rapidly becomes divorced from right action. And it is accompanied by an effort to make others wrong, as we see in hypercritical cases. A being who is apparently unconscious is *still* being right and making others wrong. It is the last criticism.

    One does a wrong action, accidentally or through oversight. The wrongness of the action or inaction is then in conflict with one’s necessity to be right. So one then may continue and repeat the wrong action to prove it is right.

    This explains the whole phenomena to me.

    • lunamoth permalink
      February 9, 2011 7:14 am

      100% right.

    • Cool Observer permalink
      February 9, 2011 8:16 am

      «When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe—never permit an “open-minded” approach. If they’re going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they’re aboard, and if they’re aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us—win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. [...] We’d rather have you dead than incapable.» — L. Ron Hubbard, “Keeping Scientology Working Series 1″, Feb. 1965.

      This explains the whole phenomena to me.

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 9, 2011 6:18 pm

        Good point.

    • Fidelio permalink
      February 9, 2011 1:03 pm

      Well, POT, is there REALLY a necessity to be right? Is there really such a thing per se?

      The impulse to try to be right might be inborn —– but the necessity to be right, too????

      Or could it be that that is a symptom of a deeply underlying inferiority and insecurity feeling which makes one – at the other hand – prone to inflated “OT” abilities and a bloated belief system like Scientology as a “remedy”?

      Is somebody resting and truly trusting in himself haunted by a “necessity to be right” ?

      I for one reject that LRH datum.

      Fidelio

      • plainoldthetan permalink
        February 9, 2011 8:20 pm

        I’m confused. *Which* LRH datum are you rejecting? (Please cite chapter and verse, so I know where you’re getting the LRH datum you’re rejecting.)

      • Fidelio permalink
        February 9, 2011 9:25 pm

        POT,
        it’s in the very quote you gave. The false datum comes into being along the line of Hubbard’s reasonings:

        The impulse to try to be right is NOT “an insisistence which rapidly becomes divorced……”
        and from there the whole reasoning ends up in an alleged “necessity to be right” which per se as a principle does not exist.

        And thus this bottom line of the reference you quoted does not answer the question “I don’t know why I could not see it.”

        I know quite some including myself who asked themselves that question, and not one suffered from “the necessity to be right”, none.

        Hope I could clarify what I was saying.

      • plainoldthetan permalink
        February 10, 2011 6:10 pm

        Thank you. I get what you’re saying now. What confused me was your use of the word “necessity” in proximity to the word “inborn” in your comment, whereas in the LRH quote the word “inborn” is in proximity to the word “insistence”.

        To me, insistence and necessity are two different things.

        When I studied service facsimiles on the SHSBC, I was first struck by the oddity of “All horses sleep in beds” being a service facsimile. But then I found my preclears insisting that they be allowed to do things that seemed to be to be obviously aberrated and non-productive. And the more I would send the pcs to ethics, the more the pcs would insist on doing the strange obsessive “you’re not the boss of me” behaviors.

        From HCOB 1 Sep 63 ROUTINE THREE SC: “The service facsimile is all of it logical gobbledygook. It doesn’t make good sense. That’s because the pc adopted it where, in extreme cases, he or she felt endangered by something but could not itsa it. Hence it’s illogical. Because it is senseless, really, the computation escapes casual inspection and makes for aberrated behavior.

        HCOB 16 Oct 1963 R3SC SLOW ASSESSMENT is also quite illuminating to the phenomena.

        I think it changes from insistence to necessity when we apply this datum from the lecture Miracles (9 Feb 1955): “That which you resist, you become — if you lose.”

        Since a service facsimile gets in the way of inspection, it is no surprise to me to hear Haggis say “Everyone else could see it. I don’t know why I couldn’t.”

        And a service facsimile can be laid in at any time. All you have to do is overwhelm a person at a raw survival level and he’s likely to set in a new service facsimile.

        So, it seems to me that either these insistent Scientologists need their service facsimiles really run, OR they needed the EXPANDED DIANETICS SERVICE FACSIMILE HANDLING (HCOB 1 May 1991 XVI), The Grade IV service facsimile procedure only addresses this-lifetime serfacs, whereas the Expanded Dianetics procedure allows addressing of whole track service facsimiles.

        .

    • Cowboy Poet permalink
      February 9, 2011 4:23 pm

      Explains it somewhat.
      But the persistence of it is still from an unwillingness to look and so that’s why Haggis said, “I don’t know why I couldn’t see it.”

  3. Debussy permalink
    February 9, 2011 9:04 am

    Great post Jeff !
    “Ready made mechanisms” – how aptly put.
    The recent radio interview with “lazlo” at http://www.theedgewithtomsmith.com/pgms/indexpg.html talks about an “External Influence Course” – just another method to hide crimes and reinforce armor for those who do not want to face atrocities within their own group or get singled out by the asinine think of “critical observation or attempted correction equals disaffection or attack”.
    Willful blindness …. I agree. I also particularly noted: ” They value the professed ideals of Scientology, the stated goals, the promised gains.” Very well put.
    Not many operate on “once bitten twice shy” most will continue to bludgeon themselves into darkness to make themselves “right”.

  4. Snowflake Dragon permalink
    February 9, 2011 10:31 am

    I know of one scientologist who said straight out “Not interested!” about the New Yorker article. That says it all, sadly.

  5. Fidelio permalink
    February 9, 2011 1:30 pm

    Jeff,

    I like your positive outlook:

    (Quote):

    “But more and more are looking.

    And discovering the facts. And once they actually look at the information and confront the facts, they usually have the same thing to say:

    “I don’t know why I couldn’t see it.” (End of quote)

    This resulting question cries for answers.

    I loved the radio show: there was probably never a fact checking so thoroughly done like now in the making of the New Yorker article?

    (?? Don’t want to question all those endevours to dismantle Hubbard’s lies before but that is how it seems to me, at least).

    Tommy Davis is a hapless though in the end an endearingly good soul: The way he helps to dismantle the whole fraud is priceless. And I say that without any sarcasm. I mean it.
    In his unwilling “innocent clumsiness”, he gives pivotal clues where to hook up pivotal questions.

    It is VERY good to look for answers OUTSIDE the DN/SCN “data” labyrinth.

    I am thankful for the genuine answers Paul Haggis came up with because an honestly interested person – Lawrence Wright – asked him the most productive questions.

    Fidelio

    • lunamoth permalink
      February 9, 2011 6:22 pm

      Yes, Fidelio, I agree with you!

      And I have recently had the thought that tommy is doing this on-purpose. That’s seems completely
      ridiculous, doesn’t it? Yet, that idea just keeps popping up…

      • Fidelio permalink
        February 9, 2011 7:03 pm

        …. :)
        well, he is young, he hasn’t seen anything but that mad artificial environment….. and still — his genuine honesty seems to fight its way to the surface against any and all brutal odds… I don’t know, I just feel for him. :)

        Fidelio

  6. February 9, 2011 2:21 pm

    Mr. Wright is quite obviously an astute man who actually understands that spell I was once under better than I myself did!
    Excellent post, Jeff.

  7. February 9, 2011 2:30 pm

    OMG, one day I will shake your hand, Jeff! I promise. I relate to everything you post. I usually don’t post comments, but today I’m going to.

    First of all, this post is so spot on it isn’t even funny.

    The evidence to back up their article, the actual documents that the article referenced, are posted on the website too. Those are telling. Big time. I don’t know why they didn’t include the coroner’s report – but OMG – if my son or my friends would just apply the tech, Look, don’t listen, they would see! Or if they would just apply confronting?

    I’m going to add to this that (sickenly) there is a large percent of staff and public Co$’ers who will never see Larry’s article because they ARE told by local DSA’s to not look. They are told that it is very entheta and why bother being enturbulated with it. This time they will be told that there is OTIII data in it and the “insiders” who are below this level will stay away in droves!!!! I know this, because at STL org, our DSA would make special announcements to staff and public to stay away from the Anderson Cooper story and previous ones.

    We can only hope that they will look this time. I know I hope. My son – not sure about. My friends, I have a lot of hope.

  8. Joanne Doe permalink
    February 9, 2011 2:38 pm

    ‘Here is conclusive proof that the founder of Scientology lied about his military record and lied about his injuries and lied about the fundamental principles out of which he created the Church of Scientology.’

    It is amazing to me that Scientologist can compartmentalize the lies and deceit of Hubbard’s
    past that factually came right from his own mouth and documents. Sure, they can say he created something wonderful…did he? No, he “borrowed” ideas and philosophies from others that came before him, and of course, he added some more of his own sticky webs. With those facts, what greatness can this man be measured by…

    I guess the simple answer is no one likes be thought of as being fooled or a fool.

  9. Aeolus permalink
    February 9, 2011 3:21 pm

    I think another thing that comes into play is that some of this stuff is just so, so far from what we would expect that it is (or was) literally unbelievable. The first anti-Miscavige data I remember was an account of him ordering Sea Org members to stay up all night planting a meadow of flowers for Tom and Nicole. I completely rejected that as somebody’s wild BS. The first time I heard of Miscavige beating staff I reacted the same way. It took hearing it a couple of times more before I thought maybe there was some truth there and decided to look into it.

    In my mind I just couldn’t connect these facts with the frame of reference I had at the time, which included the idea that someone at the top of the hierarchy would be the most reliable at applying the principles of Scientology. If what I heard had been something less egregious, perhaps it would have been believable and would have started to chip away at that frame of reference a little sooner.

    Wasn’t it Hitler who said it was easier to get away with a big lie than a little one?

  10. Synthia permalink
    February 9, 2011 3:55 pm

    This is excellent!

    With the recent events outside the church (along with the over the top non-stop regging inside) I am hoping that despite the blinding mechanisms, enough will get through to ramp up the cognitive dissonance to greater and preferably intolerable levels for some.

    The FBI is investigating the church for HUMAN TRAFFICKING people! Come on!

  11. brendon permalink
    February 9, 2011 4:04 pm

    I loved Haggis’s succinct terminology: “Willed myopia.” Your analysis rounds it out nicely Jeff.

    Of course even after looking at the facts some still don’t see it. Instead, the resulting cognitive dissonance is reconciled by saying, “It’s not Scientology, it’s DM who is the problem.” And the result is the Independent movement.

    (And contrary to the belief of the remaining true believers who see critics as having the singular purpose to wipe Scientology from the face of the Earth, I’m happy to let them believe and pursue what they like. Very supportive in fact. But I do also agree with Bill of “Ask the Scientologist” that the long term success of Scientology as promoted by the Independents is essentially doomed, just as it is doomed within the current Church.)

    I have been really impressed with Larry Wright’s knowledge of the topic and his analysis. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve cringed when I’ve read articles by well intentioned journalists who will get something wrong. I always figured any Scientologist reading such articles would leap to the conclusion that the author clearly ‘didn’t get it’ and thus dismiss the entire article. Hard to do with Mr. Wright.

  12. February 9, 2011 4:43 pm

    Great article and very, very true. I would probably replace your use of “The Church” with “Scientology,” because I think this applies to Scn both inside and outside the Church. LRH went to great lengths to ensure that people would not hear criticisms of Scientology. He says he’s not infallible, but he also says that the subject must be adhered to exactly, anyone who deviates is a criminal and anyone who is critical of the subject is evil. It’s the best protective mechanism there is.

    What’s that old saying about how the toughest prisons are the ones we keep ourselves in?

    ML,
    Caliwog

    • pysillium permalink
      February 9, 2011 6:35 pm

      Why the obsession with Hubbard? The most important question is does any part of Scientology work and if so to what degree. Seems to me (sorry to sound like a blind, brainwashed LRH-worshipper n all) that Mankind really could do with a hand.

      Many people have benefited from Scientology in their own opinion. What should we do? Focus on one mans shortcomings (with a whiff of moral superiority), or ask ourselves is there anything workable about the tech that might actually help people.

      • Joanne Doe permalink
        February 9, 2011 8:02 pm

        Why the “obsession” with Hubbard?… Because Hubbard IS Scientology.
        It’s his creation, you cannot have it BOTH ways..

        Also while I address your question, let me ask you a direct question..what
        EXACTLY has Scientology done to help Mankind?

      • Jeff permalink*
        February 9, 2011 9:06 pm

        As far as I’m concerned, all this “Don’t look at Hubbard’s life” is just another “don’t look” or “won’t look.” Hubbard asked people to take a lot of things on faith – his early research (of which there are no records), his conclusions, his upper level findings. So his personal veracity is very much to the point. I am not “anti-Hubbard” or “pro-Hubbard.” But the point is, his personal story is inextricably tied to the formation of Scientology.

      • Stein permalink
        February 9, 2011 10:43 pm

        As a long time observer, I’ve been perplexed by the Scientology’s belief that only they can save mankind – clear the planet – yet you have to pay money to gain the knowledge or skill.

        If Scientology was truly a benevolent organization interested in the welfare of mankind, their beliefs and methods would freely be available to all of society.

        The fact they aren’t is very telling of Scientology’s motivations.

        As for all things Hubbard – to learn and have proof he was a liar is akin to evidence that Jesus Christ didn’t rise again. The foundation of the whole belief system falls apart.

      • February 10, 2011 4:36 am

        Jeff,

        You say:

        “As far as I’m concerned, all this “Don’t look at Hubbard’s life” is just another “don’t look” or “won’t look.” Hubbard asked people to take a lot of things on faith”

        Pardon me if I beg to differ on this point but wasn’t it Hubbard who said:

        “What is true for you is what is what you’ve observed yourself…”

        Also what he says in “Education and the Auditor” totally contradicts the notion to accept anything in the subject “on faith”.

        “his early research (of which there are no records), his conclusions, his upper level findings.”

        Again this is a fallacious argument since there are millions of words of documented research on both the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology and hundreds of recorded lectures.

        This also applies to the advanced levels as well such as R6 which covers the Clearing Course and OT II which is covered very thoroughly on the Saint Hill Briefing Course.

        Not to mention the R&D of lower level auditing.

        Then of course as you should know is that much of R&D of OT III is covered on Class VIII.

        Never mind the levels above that at the time and OT I which came from material already researched and available in the early to mid 50’s.

        So with the exception of Excalibur which he says is a lost manuscript of his where he says he isolated the “dynamic principle of existence”.

        What research are you saying out of all those millions of written words and recorded lectures are you saying are unavailable?

        In other words that is there is “no record” of?

        “So his personal veracity is very much to the point. I am not “anti-Hubbard” or “pro-Hubbard.” But the point is, his personal story is inextricably tied to the formation of Scientology.”

        Jeff pardon me but I do detect a bias here.

        Also what does a researchers personal life have to do with their discoveries?

        Are you saying that just because Einstein never mentioned the fact that he flunked out of his physics class and took a job as a teacher prior to his Theory of Relatively that it *must* be invalid?

        Or the fact that Jack Parsons was head of the OTO in Pasadena that his work on solid fuel rockets should be discredited and that JATO of Hercules aircraft should therefore cease?

        Or because Jefferson kept slaves and may have had an affair with one that any of his dissertations on liberty and democracy should be disregarded?

        Correct if I’m wrong.

        But this seems to me to be what are you saying.

        Also another thing.

        Do you or anyone else who claims otherwise know what Hubbard’s “personal story” is?

        So far there have been hundreds of documents since released on the internet and several unflattering Biographies supposedly based on his service 201.

        Yet the provenance or veracity of these so called documents is somewhat questionable in my opinion and as far as I am concerned have as much validity as the famous MJ 12 documents since instead of being released through NARA or the DOD were released from the back of a pick up truck.

        The fact is that anyone can fake or forge a document these days to forward their own agenda.

        It’s done all the time:

        https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol5no1/html/v05i1a03p_0001.htm

        That said the final proof in my opinion of the validity of the technology is whether it works or not when standardly applied and produces the results expected.

        Anything else is just dross.

        Also please don’t consider this a personal attack Jeff.

        Because I’m not attacking you.

        Just your reasoning.

        Best Regards

        RJ

      • Sid permalink
        February 10, 2011 2:42 pm

        This is a very interesting question, and one that was mentioned in the New Yorker article. I think it was Anne Archer or her husband who said something like “well if it’s not Scientology who’s going to save the planet, then who is?”

        There seems to be a genuine belief among Scientologists that they are the only ones who are trying to save the planet.

        So is the CoS saving the planet?

        Well they certainly claim they are, and it’s one of the biggest claims they make. But are they really making any progress? Church propaganda claims that Scn, ABLE, WTH, Narconon, Criminon, CCHR, Volunteer Ministers etc are making a major difference in the world.

        It is quite frankly hard to be sure of the efficacy of any of these programs, since the CoS does not allow itself to be part of any peer-review or independent studies. If the outcomes were so great, I would expect that the church would invite independent analysis. I would also expect that the media would pick up on it and you wouldn’t have to wait until one of DM’s hyped-up speeches full of meaningless statistics to hear of it.

        Secondly, what is the alternative?

        Well I think it is true that no other group is claiming to want to save the planet in quite the same way. You could probably point at the christian church and say well they have over a billion adherents, and plenty of social welfare programs. You could also say they don’t charge the same rates as the CoS!

        There are also millions of charities around the world. I happen to know that the tiny country of Scotland has over 20,000 charities! Each one of these does not claim to be the only hope of saving the world, they are just doing their bit (quietly, without fuss, without pressure, without fanfare, without glamorous buildings, without desire for exchange, with well-intentioned volunteers as well as salaried staff).

        In fact here’s a statistic Anne Archer’s husband might want to consider. How many members of the CoS are there REALLY? Most agree it’s less than 50,000. But let’s say it’s more than that, a lot more. What if it were as much as 168,794? Because if it were that many, then there would be an entire charity in England and Wales for every single member of the CoS. Because that’s how many individual charities were on the Charity Register in 2007. The total annual income of those charities in the same period was £42 billion pounds. That’s pounds not dollars, so think maybe $55 billion. Feel free to fact check me by the way.

        What I can definitely say then, without fear of contradiction is that the size of the rest of the world’s efforts in all of these areas dwarfs even the wildest claims of the CoS.

        The reality is that the CoS cannot even save itself, let alone the planet. As Jason Beghe said, “they couldn’t clear Beverley Hills at those prices”.

      • February 10, 2011 5:07 pm

        @pysillium:

        >Why the obsession with Hubbard?

        a) Because Hubbard wrote or signed off on all of Scientology’s tech, and made it very clear that his tech, and only his tech, must be followed. Joanne Doe is right: “Scientology IS Hubbard.”

        b) If Hubbard lied about his ability to cure himself, that’s an important point. The line in Scientology, and one of the biggest lures to get people to do more, is “Hubbard’s tech works for this, so he must be right about other things.” This is the whole point of WISE (Scientology businesses). I’ve experienced it myself.

        >The most important question is does any part of Scientology work and if so to what degree.

        The truth is much of the stuff that actually does work is cribbed from psychotherapy. Hubbard made sure to criminalize the “psychs,” all but eliminating the chances that a Scientologist would seek out legitimate therapy and realize that Hubbard lied about inventing that, too.

        There’s also a lot of truth in the tech, but a lot of it is common sense expanded into a long speech. The Non-E formula is a great example. Brilliant stuff, but plenty of people sent out an introductory email when starting a new job without having read Hubbard.

        I’m sure you’ve heard from Scientologists who had the experience of not getting gains and having to convince themselves that they are did, or feeling that the fault was theirs because the tech is not flawed (after all, look at all those success stories!). Nowadays, Independent Scientologists try to blame this on DM, but if you read pre-1986 accounts, you’ll find that the same thing was going on when LRH was at the reigns.

        People believe what they want to believe. That’s one of the real dynamics of life.

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • February 10, 2011 10:09 pm

        Caliwog,

        You say:

        “a) Because Hubbard wrote or signed off on all of Scientology’s tech, and made it very clear that his tech, and only his tech, must be followed. Joanne Doe is right: “Scientology IS Hubbard.””

        This is a total identification.

        Scientology is not totally Hubbard.

        Its basically what he has approved through HCOBs and PLs which in can include the suggestions and writings of others as well per the HCOPL ‘Policy, Source of’

        Such as the HCOB “New Uses for the Book of Case Remedies”.

        The process “Please Pass the Object” developed by Dick Halpern.

        HCOPL ‘PTS Type A Handling’ developed by Mary Sue.

        There used be more examples which you can find in the original Tech and OEC vols if you bother to look.

        Until RTRC assigned credit of everything to Hubbard including things never even written by him like the bulk of the Auditor Admin Series in 91.

        “b) If Hubbard lied about his ability to cure himself, that’s an important point. The line in Scientology, and one of the biggest lures to get people to do more, is “Hubbard’s tech works for this, so he must be right about other things.” This is the whole point of WISE (Scientology businesses). I’ve experienced it myself.”

        So how would you know Hubbard “lied”.

        In fact even with what seem to be altered records suggest that Hubbard had problems with eye sight and depository illnesses such as Bursitis prior to his discovery of Dianetics that mysteriously vanished prior to release from active service.

        But even if he did “lie”.

        Wouldn’t the final proof be if it actually worked on you?

        Or if you were actually trained in its methodology.

        The PC or Pre OT that you audited?

        In other words does it matter what Hubbard did or said he did prior to his discoveries as long as those discoveries produce a result?

      • February 11, 2011 6:56 am

        RJ:

        >Its basically what he has approved through HCOBs and PLs which in can include the suggestions and writings of others as well per the HCOPL ‘Policy, Source of’

        I believe that policy states that bulletins are “rarely” written by others. :)

        Anyway, from KSW:

        “In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a Century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to “eat crow”.” — LRH

        >So how would you know Hubbard “lied”.

        Well, first of all is his military service record. That one’s just been verified by the New Yorker Magazine. (Scientologists have told me there was a cover-up operation and his records were falsified. I don’t buy it.) Second is his claim of being a nuclear physicist, which is false; it’s obvious from reading what he wrote that Hubbard knows about as much about nuclear science as I know about Mary Sue’s taste in lingerie.

        There is lots more in the Tech that smells fishy. Lots of things he says he “discovered” (implying original discovery) that I know from my wog life came from elsewhere. The bit about OT3 where he says he broke his back doing the research — that’s a debilitating injury with a long recovery. I just don’t buy it.

        And then there was his presentation of the first clear…

        >Hubbard had problems with eye sight and depository illnesses such as Bursitis prior to his discovery of Dianetics that mysteriously vanished

        Right, but we have nothing to verify that, just his word.

        >But even if he did “lie”. Wouldn’t the final proof be if it actually worked on you?

        Not necessarily. But the bulk of my experience is with the Admin Tech, and the fact is that it doesn’t work particularly well. Some of it is good, but some of it is self-limiting. Hubbard’s music tech doesn’t work; just listen to Road to Freedom. His movie tech doesn’t work; see Battlefield Earth. And from what I hear from a lot of Scientologists, Scientology doesn’t deliver the promised results. Not the big ones, anyway. (People try to blame that on DM, but the tech hasn’t been altered *that* much.) Lots of the “little” stuff that does work isn’t LRH’s original work.

        >In other words does it matter what Hubbard did or said he did prior to his discoveries as long as those discoveries produce a result?

        Yes, because if he’s representing the work of others as “his” discoveries, then his discoveries don’t work.

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • Dr. Faust permalink
        February 11, 2011 6:03 pm

        By RJ:

        “Again this is a fallacious argument since there are millions of words of documented research on both the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology and hundreds of recorded lectures.”

        Yes, there are millions of words by Hubbard himself, written in countless books and spoken in lectures. But how you come to the conclusion that this actually amounts to “research” is beyond me. I do not see independent 3rd party case studies, double blind tests, documented experiments other than recounted from Hubbard’s anecdotal memory, derivations of formulas, etc.

        “Are you saying that just because Einstein never mentioned the fact that he flunked out of his physics class and took a job as a teacher prior to his Theory of Relatively that it *must* be invalid?”

        There’s an important difference, for several reasons:
        Einstein never falsely claimed he had university degrees that he did not. Maybe you’re going to dispute that Hubbard did, but then there’s still point 2:
        Einstein’s results made predictions that are falsifiable. For instance, the general theory of relativity made the prediction that gravity sources will even deflect light. This could be tested at a total solar eclipse, where the position of stars next to the sun was changed due to the gravitational lensing effect. This effect, and numerous other effects were predicted by Einstein, and these predictions were backed up by observation.

        So what do we have with Dianetics, and subsequently, Scientology? Yes, we have predictions that are falsifiable. For instance, the total recall ability of a clear. Dianetics claims clears have perfect recall on his memory banks. And after all, memory banks store sensory perceptions down to the smallest detail. So well, you could recite a book you read 20 years ago, can’t you? You can test this claim, yet, there’s no Dianetic clear in existence who will prove this claim. I’ve heard many excuses. You must not ask a clear/OT to prove his abilities. It will invalidate him. Then I heard there’s no Dianetic clear been produced yet, because the tech is still incomplete and all clears nowadays are of a lesser state, but Dianetic clear will soon be achievable. Then some Scientologists are strictly speaking of the definition of a clear, and say someone is clear because the E-meter says so… I’m sorry, I meant because all engrams were moved to the analytical banks and the reactive bank is now empty and that they don’t have the abilities of a Dianetics clear but still got sooo great wins and feel so much better now.
        Science doesn’t work that way. Either way, Hubbard made these grandiose claims in Dianetics, and said these are now scientific fact. In light of all this, Hubbard loses alot of credibility once he later comes out “We haven’t gotten it quite right yet, but with this new change to the tech…”

        “That said the final proof in my opinion of the validity of the technology is whether it works or not when standardly applied and produces the results expected.”

        Before you have an independent, 3rd party double-blind case study, any claims about the workability is pretty much worthless. Anecdotal stories are subjective, and from a scientific point of view highly problematic. Please don’t tell me to find out for myself how Hubbard’s claims are correct. Before I invest literally thousands of hours on a subject where there are justified concerns about the validity of the underlying research, I’d rather first look at the results it got for others. And I have to say, the Scientologists in and outside the church have not made the impression of being any smarter than the normal run-of-the-mill wog on me. The good thing I can say about independent Scientologists is that their personal integrity seems to be alot higher. It’s that trait which probably is responsible for them to be quitting Co$ in the first place :-)

        “Wouldn’t the final proof be if it actually worked on you? ”

        As I’ve said before, anecdotal evidence is not proof. Can you really honestly say, everybody you audited went on to become a full blown Scientologist, or are there cases where people just silently dropped the topic and you never heard of them anymore?
        I know that the independents are a group who firmly believe in the workability of the “tech”. This set of people will of course confirm and validate with personal stories how the tech helped them. And it is a natural law that you will rarely hear those voices by people that may have been hurt by the application of the tech, who decided no longer to be a part of that group. Those few voices that get heard are justified with the rationale that the tech was “misapplied”. Or they used a squirreled version of the tech in the Co$. You have to understand that this kind of belief system is based on faith, not on scientific fact.
        The problematic thing is however, that Scientology with its Dianetics is built on the pretense that it is based on scientific fact, when in actuality there’s a large gap between rhetoric and reality.

      • February 11, 2011 7:22 pm

        Caiwog,

        Ah yes the ol’ KSW card.

        Now that you played it you will note that is says that the odds were 20/100000 that a *group* would devise a workable technology which doesn’t change what I wrote earlier regarding this.

        Also the ‘Newyorker’ never “verified” that Ron lied because 1) he never mentioned anywhere in all his writings or lectures about receiving a purple heart of any kind and 2) Ron at least studied a course relating to the subject of nuclear physics at GWU unlike like say Oppenheimer or Fermi both who only studied physics.

        So I’d say he has just as much right to call himself a nuclear physicist as either of the two above gentlemen.

        Also are you saying that just because Goddard and Parsons never took a course in rocketry that they shouldn’t be known as rocket scientists?

        Or does the fact that Einstein never completed his major in physics disqualify him from being known as the “father of nuclear physics”?

        I’m sure there would be some nuclear physicists and rocket scientists who would disagree with your stringent qualifications.

        If so.

        Regarding “movie tech” and the turkey known as ‘Battlefield Earth’.

        Ron never had anything to do with the writing of the screen play, the direction or production of it and could hardly be blamed for so called “acting”.

        Also regarding the so called “fishiness” of the tech.

        This is based on your opinion regarding OT III because you obviously haven’t run the actual process connected to running the incident.

        Nor ran any of the gradient of processes preceding it.

        So how would you know if it was fishy or not?

        I mean you could say the same thing about the recipe for baking a cake but if you never bothered trying out that recipe to see if it produced the result it claims to produce then its all just theory.

        Which leads back to the fact I stated earlier which is unless you actually applied the subject to yourself and others *correctly* then how do you know?

        And again as I stated earlier it really doesn’t matter if Ron was an inveterate liar about his military career (which is unlikely since he, himself rarely discuses it in any of his lectures or writings of which I’ve read and heard many) it still doesn’t change the fact that the *correct* tech which immediately excludes GAT and WISE’s flagrant alterations when correctly applied works.

        Anything else is just an intellectual exercise much along the lines of debating gravity.

      • Dr. Faust permalink
        February 11, 2011 9:00 pm

        “Ron at least studied a course relating to the subject of nuclear physics at GWU unlike like say Oppenheimer or Fermi both who only studied physics.”

        Which he failed, according to student records of GWU.
        I particularly like your “they ONLY studied physics” line. It’s not like nuclear physics even existed before the likes of Fermi, Weizsäcker, Oppenheimer, Hahn, etc established this field of physics. Your analogy is thus flawed.

        “So I’d say he has just as much right to call himself a nuclear physicist as either of the two above gentlemen.”

        Just compare the amount of contributions Hubbard made to the field of nuclear physics as compared to Oppenheimer and Fermi. I believe Hubbard’s is somewhere at ‘0’. And no, writing some potentially dangerous pseudo-science like “All about radiation” does not count.

        “Or does the fact that Einstein never completed his major in physics disqualify him from being known as the “father of nuclear physics”?”

        Actually, Einstein is not known as the father of “nuclear physics”. He made important contributions, naturally to the field of “relativity”, and to quantum mechanics with his works on the photoelectric effect, the latter one for which he actually got his Nobel prize for. Please keep your facts straight if you’re going for some epic analogies.

        To your comment on OTIII:
        “Nor ran any of the gradient of processes preceding it.

        So how would you know if it was fishy or not?”

        Of course one cannot know with 100% certainty it hasn’t happened. Taking into account how whacked out the whole story is, I think the chances for it to be true are comfortably low. So no, I will never swallow the OT3 story and frankly, don’t want to test out on my mind what happens if I run any of the processes associated with it, unless some OT8 happens to float by my window.

        “I mean you could say the same thing about the recipe for baking a cake but if you never bothered trying out that recipe to see if it produced the result it claims to produce then its all just theory.”

        The problem is that you’ve already tried out the recipe and still refuse to see that it never produces the results it claims, except for some not elaborately defined “general wins” on these levels.
        The fact that Miscavige is still in power, even though the church does not actually produce OTs due to “squirreled tech” is pretty telling. Where’s your OTs ability to control MEST? You could have gotten rid of Miscavige easily. Now don’t get me wrong, I firmly believe Marty is doing all in his power to bring down Miscavige, and I applaud him for this. He’s just stuck with the same weapons any other lowly wog will have: truthfulness, endurance and patience, and one thing wogs probably don’t have: knowledge about the organisation he once was a part of.

        “Anything else is just an intellectual exercise much along the lines of debating gravity.”

        This is thought-stopping again, in full action.

      • February 11, 2011 11:31 pm

        @RJ:

        >Ah yes the ol’ KSW card.

        ?

        >you will note that is says that the odds were 20/100000 that a *group* would devise a workable technology

        No, what LRH said is, “only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept … them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to “eat crow”.”

        What LRH said about a group devising a workable technology is, “I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a Century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. ”

        >Ron lied because 1) he never mentioned anywhere in all his writings or lectures about receiving a purple heart of any kind

        Ron lied about the extent of his injuries. There is evidence (in his own writing) that he sought medical attention. There is no evidence that he was blinded. We only have his word to take.

        I want to acknowledge what you said about Ron being a nuclear physicist and OT3. The first has been adequately addressed by other commenters, but I want to add that Hubbard does not fit the dictionary definition of nuclear + physicist, so he is no more a nuclear physicist than I am. For the second, let’s not forget that Hubbard described OT3 as having taken place at volcanoes that multiple geologists say did not exist at the time the incident occurred.

        I fear that I am approaching a line that Jeff does not wish us to cross, that of Hubbard bashing vs. criticism, so (unless Jeff advises otherwise) I’m going to stop and let you have the last word. I can always be reached at caliwog at hotmail dot com if you’d like to stay in comm. I’m sure we’ll spar more on future blog posts! :)

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 12, 2011 5:41 am

        Caliwog,

        Sincere admiration for that last entry.

        lunamoth

      • Valkov permalink
        February 17, 2011 8:30 am

        Some of the opinions expressed here are truly stratospheric, I would like to get at least one foot back on the ground….

        Once again, the term “double-blind studies” is bandied about.

        I won’t bother to try convincing anyone here that double-blind studies are not applicable to many things, including psychotherapy and auditing. I’ll just post a link and let folks find out for themselves.

        Noun 1. double-blind study – an experimental procedure in which neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering the
        experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment; “a double-blind procedure is used to guard against both experimenter bias and
        placebo effects”

        Occassionaly there arises a hue and cry to apply double-blind studies to scientology. Both folks who wish to prove, and those who wish to
        disprove, the effectiveness of scientological procedures say they would like to see these kind of studies.

        Both sides will be disappointed to learn that it is virtually impossible to do double-blind studies on procedures such as are used in scientology.

        For an excellent discussion of double-blind studies, their effectiveness, and their often startling results, and especially their limitations, please read this site:

        http://www.mendosa.com/bratman.htm

        In any case, having an understanding of double-blind studies is a good thing for us now, as the subject will no doubt keep surfacing.

        The good news is, good single-blind studies could be designed to test many aspects of scientology procedures.

        http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&th=250&start=0&S=b006b43eac3c85b3406767921c5be96c

        Folks may also be interested in the “SCIENTISM” thread on that forum.

      • Jeff permalink*
        February 17, 2011 4:59 pm

        Valkov, fair enough, you have your opinion on double-blind studies, but the article you link to argues for the absolute necessity of double-blind studies. To quote: “Most alternative medicine methods are grounded in tradition, common sense, anecdote, and testimonial. On the surface, these seem like perfectly good sources of information. However, double-blind studies have shown us otherwise. We now know that a host of “confounding factors” can easily create a kind of optical illusion, causing the appearance of efficacy where none in fact exists. The double-blind study is thus much more than a requirement for absolute proof of efficacy (as is commonly supposed) — it is a necessity for knowing almost anything about whether a treatment really works.”

      • Valkov permalink
        February 17, 2011 10:11 pm

        Jeff, it is not “my” opinion on double-blind studies, it is the author’s. It never ceases to amaze me how may people fail to read the entire article and in their desire to rebut me have skipped on to posting without actually reading to the end of it, specifically the author’s own footnote, quoted here:

        “While a number of herbs and supplements have reached, or nearly reached the level of solid proof, most alternative therapies have not.*”

        “*To be fair, for some types of treatment, such as chiropractic, acupuncture, physical therapy, and surgery, it isn’t possible to design a true double-blind study: the practitioner will inevitably know whether real or a fake treatment has been applied. In such cases, most researchers settle for a “single-blind” design, in which the study participants (and the people who evaluate the participants to see if they’ve responded to therapy), but not the practitioners of the therapy. The problem with such single-blind studies, though, is that the practitioners may convey enthusiasm when they are providing a real treatment and lack of enthusiasm when they apply a fake one. The former might act as a better placebo than the latter, and thereby produce the results that really have nothing to do with the treatment itself. To get around this, Kerry Kamer D.O. has suggested using actors trained to provide fake treatment with confidence and enthusiasm, but, so far as I know, this has not yet been tried. ”

        It’s easy enough to do these studies when all you’re testing are the effects of a pill. All pills can be made to look alike, no-one need know which ones are the “real”ones…..

        How would you test the results of a psychotherapy? How do you design and deliver “fake” psychotherapy, or auditing, or surgery, or acupuncture, to some study participants, and the real thing to others at the same time without anyone in the experiment knowing which was which? Or try to imagine doing double-blind studies for educational and teaching procedures. How do you design “fake”, “placebo” instructional methods, and apply them without anyone in the experiment knowing? Good luck.

        It’s not “my”opinion, Jeff. Read the whole article. Read up on these kind of studies and their application or lack thereof to “soft” procedures like counselling, education, and psychotherapy. It’s not like people haven’t thought about it.

      • Jeff permalink*
        February 17, 2011 11:36 pm

        Valkov, I get your point and it is an interesting one. How would one design an objective study of Scientology? Possibly one could have a control group that is not audited and test the auditing group and the control group before and after. But I really don’t think there is any interest from anyone in objectively testing Scientology, certainly not from the Church.

  13. AMY'S MOM permalink
    February 9, 2011 5:02 pm

    Why do we stay blinded? It’s not just the “must be right” thing. Scn is also terribly introverting. For instance: If Scn is the salvation of the planet and you are therefore not doing all you possibly can to enhance that, then there must be something really wrong with you. After all, the fate of every man, woman and child is resting on your shoulders and if you screw up we are all doomed for eternity, according to holy scripture KSW 1. No pressure here, folks.

    So when you’re stats are down or you can’t go along with something you see or hear, the tendancy is to think “What’s Wrong With Me??!” Since there is no case on post, you tend to keep it to yourself, as otherwise you are being “a case” or “part of the problem” instead of OT and part of the solution. Most go on hoping that it will be addressed as they move up the Bridge, because obviously, the fault is with them, not with the benevolent organization! And other staff members seem oblivious to it, so therefore it must be you. If you talk about doubts or reservations, it’s considered natter and therefore you have counter-intention and crimes. And after you’ve been shot down a few times for trying to rectify a situation and get it back on track, you tend to pull your neck into your collar even further.

    Of course, you’re also taught that introversion is a bad thing, which makes you more introverted, by the way, and less able to look at the actual scene around you.

    There is also very little praise and approval and commendations are rare. But there are plenty of negative reports and plenty of seniors to tell you just how screwed up you are, so the introversion is constantly reinforced.

    So out here, the relief and revilation that comes from finding out it wasn’t you is enormous! Finally you can look, are free to look and take many large breaths of fresh air.

    • sherrymk permalink
      February 9, 2011 8:55 pm

      Amy’s Mom,

      Excellent analysis. Exactly it. What I finally became aware of was how absolutely introverting Scientology is and especially so the highter you go “up the bridge” to “total freedom”. It is simply a no win situation. Everything you’ve described is precisely what occurred to me, to the point of breaking. Thankfully I got out in time to recover my sanity.

      And Jeff..as usual, brilliant post. You have that way of presenting points of view with a perspective that makes it easy for others to understand and analyze for themselves. Gorgeous.

    • lunamoth permalink
      February 9, 2011 9:36 pm

      Amy’s Mom, you are so right!

    • RenegadeX permalink
      February 10, 2011 9:30 pm

      So well stated!!!

    • Dr. Faust permalink
      February 11, 2011 6:12 pm

      “If Scn is the salvation of the planet and you are therefore not doing all you possibly can to enhance that, then there must be something really wrong with you. After all, the fate of every man, woman and child is resting on your shoulders and if you screw up we are all doomed for eternity, according to holy scripture KSW 1. No pressure here, folks.”

      Another contradiction. Hubbard said “optimum survival is optimum survival on all dynamics”. Discarding one dynamic in favor of the other is not optimum survival. Yet this is what happens and is told each and every Scientologist in the church.

  14. February 9, 2011 5:47 pm

    I understand how it can happen, up to a point. What I don’t understand is how black and white it is… once declared SP, it’s like you are evil, and everything you ever did was evil and every word out of your mouth is evil. There is no grey area at alll, as if you might not be all bad or all good.

    • Snowflake Dragon permalink
      February 9, 2011 11:08 pm

      Not only that – people that are declared ‘whatever’ disappear and it’s not even questioned!

    • February 10, 2011 5:13 pm

      Jo, suggest you read the Doubt Formula. You can go to this (non-Scn) link:

      http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-11.html

      and search for “formula for doubt” and you will see it.

      It’s all about dividing the world into black and white — groups, in Scientology. Decide which group is better, then join that group and leave the other. There is no room for grey thinking. In Scientology, you’re either with us or against us.

      ML,
      Caliwog

  15. Idle Org permalink
    February 9, 2011 6:07 pm

    I do not envy Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes in light of all the recent, FBI-related breaking stories. I don’t sympathize, at least not with Tom, I merely do not envy them.

    Five years ago Tom was the single biggest box office draw in the world. The biggest movie star on earth, as many interviewers, including Oprah, dubbed him.

    Today, he is a world-wide subject for mockery, arrogance, ignorance, cult-member-status and possibly even claims of utter insanity.

    Today, he cannot sit down to be interviewed by anyone. For the first question would be about the FBI and once Tom’s TR’s go out (Mat Lauer), he would simply shoot himself in the foot even more than he already has.

    So, I speculate that Tom Cruise is currently in hiding. Residing in the “where are they now” file.

    And can you imagine being in Katie’s shoes right now? That poor girl. Her movie star husband is now the subject of an FBI investigation regarding slave labor and human trafficking, splashed across every news outlet on earth.

    Even if Tom walks away clean, the damage is done.

    Now, the reason I bring up Tom Cruise is because I firmly believe that he will be the last person on the planet to tell himself “I don’t know why I couldn’t see it.”

    • freespirit permalink
      February 9, 2011 6:34 pm

      Excellent post Idle Org.

      • Idle Org permalink
        February 9, 2011 7:07 pm

        Thanks Freespirit,

        Just had one last thought here…..

        The FBI is out to get Davey. If we toss in some Martians, I believe that will just about do him in for good!
        :-)

    • February 11, 2011 2:42 am

      I agree Idle Org on all your points except the last.

      In my opinion is that there is a difference between him and Paul.

      Paul and some of the celebs I met at CC years ago would never even consider doing what Cruise has done.

      Most of them loved and respected the Staff and the feeling was mutual.

      Yet with Tommy its been a one way flow.

      I mean I talked to staff who are instructed to avert their gaze away from Cruise so they won’t make eye contact.

      Like WTF?

      As if the guy is some kinda Shogun.

      I was personally at CC once when the whole reception and lobby were cleared for the arrival of the conquering Cruise.

      I mean I was just a lowly Field Auditor (FKA “one of the most valuable beings on the planet”) dropping off some PC Folder for one of my PC’s who wanted to coaudit at CC and had no idea until the receptionist instructed me to get the f_ck outta Dodge because his eminence would be arriving soon probably on a magic unicorn or something.

      Funny thing Tom wasn’t a bad guy while he was married to Mimi before he became the object of Miscavige’s obsession and he went into the valence of the arrogant SOB who currently rules Scientology.

      From what I hear he is just as arrogant and obnoxious.

      Expecting everyone he encounters to be obsequious.

      Thus it’s no surprise that he expects the Staff to run around like they are slaves on some plantation in the Antebellum South .

      The guy will never see what he’s doing because he’s too caught up in being Massa Cruise.

      If the guy had a shred of humility he’d see what he’s doing is wrong.

      But like his arrogant buddy Dave he has no idea of his hubris.

      Thus I’d doubt if he could ever come to the same conclusion that Paul came to.

      • Quicksilver permalink
        February 11, 2011 7:05 pm

        ” If the guy had a shred of humility he’d see what he’s doing is wrong.”

        Great line RJ … quite amazing that he can continue on believing that what he is doing is right.

        It takes a bit of guts sometimes to say “I F’ed up” and eat a bit of crow, but, if Tom Cruise did that and had a bit of a plan to make things right, his stats would revert.

        DM & TC feed off each others egos – they love to admire one another, and look at the rest of us as the ‘little people’.

        Helping others is really very low on the list.

        If they truly wanted to ‘clear the planet’, the two of them have enough money to make a major impact.

      • February 12, 2011 11:03 am

        Exactly QS.

        I remember that wacked out vid of his posted by our friends in Anonymous where he talks about driving *by* an accident scene and says because he’s a Scientologist he would have known what to do or whatever.

        I’m sure you or I being real Scientologists would have stopped to see if we could have offered assistance.

        Not Tom!

        He just acts like a Scientologist.

        Like his friend Dave.

        The problem is that both of them are really bad actors.

        They just *think* they’re good.

  16. February 9, 2011 7:12 pm

    Idle Org,

    Let’s put up another scenario, what if TC has already had the realization: “I don’t know why I couldn’t see it.” Maybe he sees himself so entangled that he cannot see a way to declare it to the world, much less his closest relatives. Life can be very complicated that way, even if you’re a multimillionaire.

    All I know is that there are many still in, apparently drinking the Kool-Aid, “waiting it all out”, believing that it’ll all be better some day soon.

    When I was still getting phone calls from the orgs (now I’m supposedly declared a suppressive person) I would have hour long conversations with call-iners. I would ask them how much they slept, when was the last time they talked to their mom, did they know that David Miscavige beat up Sea Org members etc. etc. I especially remember Konstantine from Ukraine. I told him I would be his American mom, did he ever decide to get out of there and I would help get him to the Ukrainian embassy to ensure he could get back home. I still wait for him to show up at my front door one day. The offer is still there to anyone, especially young people from other countries not knowing how to navigate in the USA. I’m from Denmark and have lived in the US for 24 years. My e-mail address is bodil@scandical.com.

    • Idle Org permalink
      February 9, 2011 9:15 pm

      Interesting Bodil,

      Perhaps TC does know something’s terribly wrong.

      No way for us to know, really. Not yet, at least.

      I’d guess that the whole celebrity Scientology community is paying attention right now. The FBI takes it to a whole new level. No longer is it just Marty and Mike, et al. It’s the Fed’s. It’s big. It’s doing serious PR damage to “the fastest growing religion on earth”.

      I’d also guess that the very words we write here are indeed being read by some Scn celebs and a whole hell of a lot of fenc-sitters, currently in Doubt.

      My goal isn’t to destroy any workable tech. It’s to stop David Miscavige from destroying it.

      If LRH were alive today, he would be telling everyone to LOOK on the biggest comm line earth has ever known……the internet! Unless, that is, he had somthing to hide.

      • February 10, 2011 5:28 pm

        >If LRH were alive today, he would be telling everyone to LOOK on the biggest comm line earth has ever known……the internet!

        I don’t know about that, Idle. Look at what LRH wrote about newspaper reporters and the media in general. At the end of the day, the Internet is just another comm line, and I think LRH would have treated it as such.

        “”Computers are at best only servo-mechanisms (crutches) to the mind. Yet the chromium plated civilization today has a childish faith in them. It depends on who asks the questions and who reads the computer’s answers whether they are of any use or not. And even then their answers are often madhouse silly.” — LRH, HCO PL 18 Aug 82/AKH Srs 42, TARGETS AND PRODUCTION

        ML,
        Caliwog

      • February 11, 2011 8:52 pm

        Caliwog,

        Are you then questioning the very valid point that Ron is making stated otherwise regarding computers as:

        “Garbage in=Garbage out”

        The fact is that there is much reported in the media never mind the internet that isn’t true like for instance that Iraq had WMD or going back to the CIA never having any involvement in the Bay of Pigs or that Nixon never tried to cover up that lil’ Watergate incident and Clinton never had sex with that woman ….Monica Lewinsky etc, etc.

        Or even better!

        That our Government has secretly signed some kind of pact with extraterrestrials as it says here:

        http://www.majesticdocuments.com/

        The same ones that “prove” this have as much validity as say the dox currently being seeded on the internet in my opinion.

        Those that have been side checked and verified by objective parties on both sides of the debate on the existence of extraterrestrials have pretty much come to the conclusion that they are about as phony as a three dollar bill.

        However there are those who still want to *believe*.

        I guess they similar to those who want to *believe* that Ron was a liar.

        Me I’m not into this “believe” thing.

        When I see documents that have been verified as properly released through the FOIA meaning properly stamped and verified by the proper agencies involved which includes the redactions expected of personnel AKA 201 or sensitive formerly classified files.

        Not a bunch of documents released from the back of a pick up truck or on microfilm with virtually no redactions by someone with an obvious agenda then I may revise my judgement.

        Otherwise to me its all faith based “research”.

      • Jeff permalink*
        February 11, 2011 9:05 pm

        Or those who want to “believe” that Ron always told the truth…

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 12, 2011 3:05 am

        There’s nothing wrong with taking something on faith, if you know that’s what you’ve done.

      • February 12, 2011 3:46 pm

        @RJ

        You said “When I see documents that have been verified as properly released through the FOIA meaning properly stamped and verified by the proper agencies involved …”

        You, of course, applied the same strict criteria when evaluating all data, right? You applied such strict fact-checking to everything LRH said, right?

        Obviously not.

        Why would Hubbard’s statements get an automatic pass and anything that contradicts Hubbard have to face some extremely high “validation” process? Don’t you realize the inherent, and extreme, bias you demonstrate?

        If you are going to “demand” some extremely vigorous validation process, then apply it to ALL the data, not just the data you, personally, don’t like.

  17. pysillium permalink
    February 10, 2011 6:49 pm

    Joanne Doe ‘because Hubbard is Scientology’

    You mean like Ayn Rand is Objectivism and Stephen Hawking is theoretical physics?

    Jeff – the most direct way to judge Scientology is to try it, not read up on its founder. You and others have found it wanting, understood, but there are others who have been helped by it, irrespective of how Hubbard came to his conclusions or whether he plagiarised or even whether the theories underpinning auditing are accurate. Maybe Hubbard stumbled on something useful and maybe this something can contribute to mans understanding of himself as we enter the age of artificial intelligence and nuclear proliferation. I just say whilw we gleefully empty the bathwater, lets keep an eye out for a baby.

    Nice blog by the way

    • February 10, 2011 9:25 pm

      @psyllium

      >Joanne Doe ‘because Hubbard is Scientology’
      >You mean like Ayn Rand is Objectivism and Stephen Hawking is theoretical physics?

      No, psyllium, because AFAIK Stephen Hawking never claimed that he was the first to discover theoretical physics, or that no contributions by others have ever yielded any significant progress in theoretical physics, or that other people will killed or injured trying to find theories that he discovered.

      These are all claims made by LRH, and I can provide references.

      Sorry, not familiar with Ayn Rand so I can’t answer for her. :)

      >others who have been helped by it, irrespective of how Hubbard came to his conclusions or whether he plagiarised

      There are aspects taught in Scientology that work. Best example: Dianetic auditing, which is plagiarized – it’s basically regression therapy.

      So let’s say someone does it and it brings relief. Do we say that person was helped by Dianetics/Scintology or do we say they were helped by regression therapy?

      This is why “Scientology works” and it’s a slippery slope.

      Keep in mind LRH’s standards. If I take Dianetic auditing, and I repackage it as Caliwogism, I can rightfully claim that it works – people are helped by Caliwogism. But according to LRH’s tech, I’m a squirrel and a criminal.

      I say give credit where credit is due. And if you look (not listen), you see that credit, in many if not most cases, isn’t due to Hubbard.

      ML,
      Caliwog

      • Quicksilver permalink
        February 11, 2011 11:10 pm

        Calliwog

        Regression therapy is not auditing nor is it anything close.

        Look up regress, remember, recall, think … they are all different.

        With auditing you stay in present time aware of your surrounding.

    • Joanne Doe permalink
      February 10, 2011 11:17 pm

      Both Rand and Hawkings are both controversial thinkers that defined some types of ideals and science. What they are not, are idols that people look towards for day to day guidance and spiritual well being.

      Again, I ask you plainly, what has Scientology done for mankind? Also, the gains that you profess, is it only that the process has made you “feel” better. Has it given you lasting happiness , more so than without Scientology. I’m a curious person and I always read about all the “gains’, yet I never read what exactly those gains are. Do you really believe in the power of an OT? Not trying to be flip, I am trying to understand this belief system that on the inside in so fraught with greed, authoritarian rules, fear, and power.

      Has there EVER been a Scientologist that has won the Nobel Peace Price, became President, won an Olympic medal, showed any super powers, Pulitzer? Isn’t the Tech suppose to make you the best in your lifetime? Or pysillium, are you just a person, like everyone else, except you happen to believe that LRH Tech teaches how to be these things,
      Except his promises have fallen short..way short..

      I often wonder, when I read about Scientology, that it seems to make life so much HARDER..life is about joy, and finding out who you are, not letting someone else dictate that..

      I feel happiness comes from within and from believing in a higher power then myself..Everything else will follow…I hope you take the time to answer my questions because maybe then I will understand it.

      • pysillium permalink
        February 12, 2011 2:03 pm

        Idol? “whats true is true for you”, seems pretty clear

        OT’s cannot walk on water or visit Mars but does that prove they’ve had no considerable gain?

        Many of the problems on this planet are caused by Man, so to me, any forward progress in understanding Man is valuable. In my experience, dspite not living up to Hubbard’s more exaggerated proclamations, Dn/Sn does have something valuable to add.

        Joanne, I cannot prove to yuur satisfaction that I have benefited from Hubbards teachings just as I cannot prove that i’m in love with my partner.

        Sorry, it’s largely subjective, but no less real to me. :)

  18. Idle Org permalink
    February 10, 2011 10:08 pm

    Caliwog,

    You make a good point.

    That said, I believe that LRH would recognize today’s vast differences in the world’s comm lines from way back in ’82 when CNN et al, was still in the womb and the net wasn’t anything more than a crazy dream.

    If he cared about clearing the planet in earnest, he would be utilizing this magic thing called the internet to the fullest today. As Joe Howard and others have mentioned, you can now use skype for successful auditing, anywhere in the world (except perhaps, Egypt, currently).

    LRH would’ve either been a whole lot more honest about his life (knowing how powerful the net really is), or he would’ve been dishonest and subsequently utterly shunned the net. But I think he’d be too smart to commit career suicide like that.

    The net changes the entire game. A high school kid can change the world with one Youtube video. When have we ever seen that ability before?

    Interesting to speculate…

    The man was constantly in search of better comm lines, thus his move from the US to Europe in the sixties. I’d have to believe he would’ve had the biggest website you ever laid eyes on.

    • February 11, 2011 4:50 am

      @Idle Org:

      I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that LRH would have made great use of the web. One point Marty makes that I agree with is the Co$ is 20 years out of date on technology. If LRH were alive, lectures would be on podcast, films on streaming video, all protected with DRM, and there would be online auditing.

      But I don’t know that he would be honest about his life. The Freedom of Information Act was passed 20 years before he died, and he must have known that his military records would be available. Heck, people were unraveling the tales he told about his life long before he passed away.

      No, I think LRH just figured he wouldn’t get caught. More likely, he wouldn’t worry about it. He trained his followers not to look at “entheta.” And he’s right – it’s working. How many Scientologists are going to read the New Yorker article? LRH planned his scheme well!

      ML,
      Caliwog

  19. nice lady permalink
    February 11, 2011 9:49 am

    When my husband and I woke up and realized we had been in a cult for almost forty years it took months to come to terms with this. We are still reeling. In a few short words, Paul Haggis said it all. We are moving on with our lives, enjoying every day of freedom from the cult mindset. I would love to know the percentage of people who got in when they were children, teenagers or young adults. The most impressionable ages. This is our case, both teenagers when we got in. Thank you, Jeff, for all you have done to expose the cult. You have done more to set people free than you might realize, because it’s not just leaving the “church”, it’s leaving an entire way of thinking and living and viewing the world that is gone now and enabling us to really enjoy and deal with life and to explore the real world and think for ourselves.

  20. February 11, 2011 5:34 pm

    A question:
    If hubbard lied about his life and yourself had the experience of having engramms and being able to get rid of them. Would that nullify the existence of engramms ?
    Another one:
    Einstein cheated on his wife and so was propably aslo lying from time to time.
    Would that nullify his discoveries ?

    • February 11, 2011 6:17 pm

      >Would that nullify the existence of engramms ?

      No, but remember that Hubbard didn’t actually discover engrams; he just said he did. In reality, he repackaged the idea (conceived by Freud, I believe) that the mind sometimes buries painful experiences. Hubbard changed the terms, but I believe modern psychotherapists call it regression therapy. And then he vilified “the psychs” and refused auditing to ex-psych patients in part to avoid his followers finding out that “engrams” aren’t original to Dianetics. (Smart guy, he was.)

      So if recalling engrams and getting rid of them works for you, that’s fantastic – but it’s not Hubbard’s “discovery.” Does that change things?

      > Einstein cheated on his wife and so was propably aslo lying from time to time. Would that nullify his discoveries ?

      It would if he developed the Theory of Marital Harmony, or if he lied about his research. But he didn’t. So even if he was bedding down every research assistant, it wouldn’t nullify his discoveries. It’d make him a bad husband, but not a bad scientist.

      But Hubbard’s lies relate directly to his theories. If his theories are based on healing his war injuries, and the evidence says there were no war injuries, that nullifies his theories. At least, the ones he didn’t steal. :)

      ML,
      Caliwog

    • Dr. Faust permalink
      February 11, 2011 6:26 pm

      “If hubbard lied about his life and yourself had the experience of having engramms and being able to get rid of them. Would that nullify the existence of engramms ?”

      No, that fact would not nullify engrams if they existed. It would however call into question the veracity of his research, because he credits his initial work on the whole topic of Scientology, Engrams, etc. with the incidents in his life, like finding a way to cure his injuries.

      “Einstein cheated on his wife and so was propably aslo lying from time to time.
      Would that nullify his discoveries?”

      Your two questions are misleading. Einstein did not claim his physics research is based on the fact that he was faithful to his wife. There is no connection between the two whatsoever.

      Besides, the predictions that are a consequence of Einstein’s work have been proven countless times and not been falsified yet by any experiment or observation.
      To date, Hubbard’s work has no scientific proof.

    • Joanne Doe permalink
      February 11, 2011 6:28 pm

      The usage of engrams were first used and studied by Richard Semon. He was a zoologist and a biologist. He died in 1918 by suicide. This is not to say an engram is not real..it is a memory.
      Why you would want to erase your memories is something I can not understand..good or bad…..Anyway, Hubbard stole the engram theory too!

      The Einstein comparison?…lame…doesn’t make sense.

      • Dr. Faust permalink
        February 11, 2011 9:07 pm

        “Why you would want to erase your memories is something I can not understand..good or bad…..Anyway, Hubbard stole the engram theory too!”

        To come to the Scientologist’s defense here:
        Hubbard never claimed to “erase” memories. As per Dianetics, the engrams are removed from the reactive banks (bad) and stored in the analytical bank (good), where they persist as memories, which can then be accessed normally.

      • Valkov permalink
        February 14, 2011 9:54 am

        Dr Faust, you this one 100% right in your answer to Joanne Doe. Hubbard specifically states that engrams are NOT memories, but that when the “charge” is taken off of them, they are converted to memories.

        That’s the whole point – as an “engram” the experience is not completely remembered by the person and that’s why it can influence him. Once he “erases” it as an “engram”, the it is refiled as a “memory” and it’s unwanted effects are gone, he is more free to choose.

      • February 14, 2011 6:16 pm

        It makes lots of sense !
        Einstein used the works of many other people too, but he did the final formulation of the theory as lrh did it with engramms !
        He said he used the works of Freud and lots of other people too, the same einstein did !

      • February 14, 2011 8:01 pm

        LO, Einstein did not simply rename the terms and then try to sell the work as his own. Hubbard did.

        Einstein did not say that other people’s work in the same field was invalid. Hubbard did.

        Einstein did not say that critics of his theories only criticized because they had criminal pasts, which crimes should be investigated and publicized.

        Einstein welcomed open examination and criticism of his work. Hubbard did the exact opposite.

        ML,
        Caliwog

    • Idle Org permalink
      February 11, 2011 6:38 pm

      It is admittedly hard for me to separate LRH the individual from his tech, but I’m trying.

      If he indeed made up (lied about) many of his adventures, then the man was sitting on withholds permanently. Per his own tech, wouldn’t that bar him from making much case gain? Wouldn’t it prevent him from as-ising things? Wouldn’t it keep his IQ lower? Stupidity is the unknownness of consideration. His time, place, form and event would have to be pretty screwed up if he not only vebally lied to his “friends” but then allowed it to be included in his legacy, his lectures, the LRH life exhibit, various future publications on him, etc.

      In other words, his lies carry through to all VIP’s, actors, artists, political figures, religious figures, children who study his legacy at delphi, etc, forever.

      That is a continuous overt on a world-wide scale. How can that not affect his ability to research and locate truth? We already know about an earlier book called “Scientologie”, by another author.

      We just learned from Marty Rathbun that LRH had considered dropping the OT3 level all together. I speculate this is because even LRH finally cognited he had really outdone himself on that particular piece of space opera. But then, I’m not OT so no offense to anyone with a different view. I can only work with what I have to hand which unfortunately leads to much speculation.

      And “speculation” seems to be rampant these days, even amongst OT’s arguing with one another in various blog comment sections as to what’s true or not.

      Paul Haggis now claims he has experienced relief from seeking a non-Scn therapist. So there may well be cogs one can experience from many forms of two-way comm. The real question is, did LRH create amazing tech or did he just get people into a modern (at the time) therapy technique, gleaned from other’s prior work?

      Hard to say what’s true…

      Hard not to judge the efficacy of the work of a potential pathological liar.

      Hard to confront the world-wide joke that LRH and Scn most definitely are in the eyes of humanity. Sounds like a generality but just Google both subjects for a few good hours and be prepared to weep. I believe the integrity of a man can be judged by how his legacy is viewed by the world at large. In LRH’s case, it’s very negative.

      • Cool Observer permalink
        February 11, 2011 9:05 pm

        “Per his own tech, wouldn’t that bar him from making much case gain?”

        Only if you assume that his tech was accurate. But if it was accurate, this blog would probably not exist.

      • Dr. Faust permalink
        February 11, 2011 9:30 pm

        If he indeed made up (lied about) many of his adventures, then the man was sitting on withholds permanently. Per his own tech, wouldn’t that bar him from making much case gain? Wouldn’t it prevent him from as-ising things?

        Holy…. those really are hard-hitting questions!

      • February 11, 2011 11:35 pm

        Idle Org, it’s very, very cool to hear (read) this stated from a Scientology perspective. I’d really like to re-post this on my blog – can you contact me at caliwog at hotmail-dot-com to discuss?

        ML,
        Caliwog

    • Cool Observer permalink
      February 11, 2011 8:09 pm

      The existence of traumatic/suppressed memories was not discovered by Hubbard, he ripped that off (like the term ‘engram’). Auditing is plagiarized regression therapy with a lie detector.

      Please don’t tell me you’re comparing Hubbard with Einstein. That would be highly inappropriate.If you’re unsure why, read “All about radiation”.

  21. Idle Org permalink
    February 12, 2011 12:28 am

    Caliwog,

    Please feel free to post and let us know where we can find your blog.

    Thanks!
    IO

    • February 12, 2011 9:41 am

      Thanks, IO – My blog is at caliwog.wordpress.com. Please have a look and let me know if you have any objections to me posting there. Not that there’s anything particularly horrible, but one should always know where one’s words are being posted. Any issues, let’s talk offline.

      ML,
      Caliwog

  22. jenkins permalink
    February 12, 2011 2:45 pm

    Jeff, I am an indi Scnist from Italy. I usually post my comments only on ‘Indipendologo’, an Italian blog that has been very successful in the last months to expose DMs crimes and cause a defection of a lot of people from actual church (do you know it?). So first of all, forgive my bad english……
    Even if you clearly specify that you do not consider yourself anymore a Scientologist (and also in several of your posts you assume a 360 degrees ‘critical’ viewpoint even on LRH) it’s been a lot of months that I want to say you THANKS for having opened up my eyes (and a lot of other eyes) on a huge number of outpoints. I consider you an extremely brilliant observer of what happened to the church, and my esteem is even higher because now I know what you have done in your days in SO to expand Scientology, during the times you were fully embracing the purpose of a better world through SCN. so THANK YOU! Not always I read your posts but each time I did i loved what you wrote, for your continue search of the truth, and for your courage and integrity. Jenkins

  23. February 12, 2011 7:50 pm

    “William
    February 12, 2011 3:46 pm

    @RJ

    You said “When I see documents that have been verified as properly released through the FOIA meaning properly stamped and verified by the proper agencies involved …”

    You, of course, applied the same strict criteria when evaluating all data, right? You applied such strict fact-checking to everything LRH said, right?

    Obviously not.”

    Actually wrong.

    I use a different criteria for subjects I study for application which is simply.

    ******Does it work******

    “Why would Hubbard’s statements get an automatic pass and anything that contradicts Hubbard have to face some extremely high “validation” process?

    Actually Hubbard “statements” as far as the technology is concerned has been rigorously tested by actual application and observation of the result.

    I have little concern for what else Hubbard says about himself personally or what others say about him.

    • February 13, 2011 2:15 am

      >Actually Hubbard “statements” as far as the technology is concerned has been rigorously tested by actual application and observation of the result.

      With all due respect, RJ, in my experience, actual application and observation of the result would indicate that the technology does *not* work. I have seen for myself OTs who did not demonstrate the abilities promised by the State of Clear — OT8s who still need glasses and who did not have anything approaching a perfect memory. I have observed OTs who believe they can project an intention or postulate to make something happen, and it doesn’t.

      I should add that I came into these observations with no preconceived notions. I had heard that Scientology was a cult, but I observed that the Scientologists I met – to a person – were bright, happy, wonderful people. And yet when I read about what they were supposed to be gaining from Scientology, it was clear that it was not happening. They did not have the abilities Scientology promised. And most seemed to have voluntarily given up their ability to think outside of Scientology.

      I have personally applied the Admin Tech, I have been commended for applying it properly, and I have observed that it doesn’t always work. In many cases there are other ways of doing things that work better, but no one will do them because LRH did not say to do them.

      And I know enough about how the “success story” system works to know that such affidavits are NOT proof that the technology works. I want to acknowledge that this is my origination; you did not say they were evidence. You said apply the technology and observe the results. I bring this up because Scientology created a culture of success, in which Scientologists are surrounded by supposed proof that the technology works, and told that if it doesn’t work, the problem is them.

      The fact is, RJ, no scientifically valid study has ever established that Scientology works.

      You talk about observing things for yourself. I knew a guy in college who looked in the mirror and saw an absolute stud that no woman would be able to resist. That is what he observed to be true. And yet he always slept alone. His observations were not validated by an independent third party. And trust me, we had plenty of girls who were up for a night of independent validation.

      Just because something is true for you, that does NOT make it true.

      ML,
      Caliwog

      • Valkov permalink
        February 14, 2011 9:13 am

        Caliwog,

        Here’s the corollary to your statement:

        And, if something is not true for you, that does not make it untrue.

      • February 14, 2011 4:13 pm

        Valkov, I actually agree with you, and it comes down to the same thing: Giving oneself permission to ignore reality and substitute what one wants to see. This is a weak point that is hard-wired into the human psyche, and Scientology takes great advantage of it.

        The reality is that a given thing is either true or false. Period. Whether or not we choose to see it — that is the actual variable.

        ML,
        Caliwog

  24. Moving Forward permalink
    February 13, 2011 7:02 am

    I’ve been mulling this post and the New Yorker article over a bit the last few days. I cannot say that I didn’t see or allow myself to see the bad because I *did* see it and *did* experience it (well enough of it at least… I didn’t know any of the horrors of the Int base previously). The problem was that I justified what I saw, what I knew and what I experienced. I thought that all of these outnesses I saw in the SO would get fixed; I knew that things were messed up but I sincerely thought that things at Int were so ideal and that it would ‘filter’ down, so to speak.

    I saw the world itself being full of problems that I thought Scientology could fix. I didn’t care so much about having to work long hours and not making money; for me, if it really did result in helping others and making this world a better place, it would have been worth it. But I did not agree with many things, like SO members never having time off, the RPF, children being neglected at the ranch school and children being recruited so young. I knew these things were anathema to what I thought Scientology was supposed to be, but yet why did I allow myself to justify this happening? I think that is my big question to myself and it is what gnaws at me the most.

    I think part of the answer lies in what Amy’s mom said: so much is done to introvert you in the church. If something bad happens to you, you pulled it in. If something bad happened to someone else, they pulled it in. This creates such a heartless, cold and cruel environment.

    I’d always thought that the way SO and staff were treated was a pure pendulum swing from being so-called ‘worker-oriented’ to being completely worker-abusive. No reward, all penalty. Constant ‘state of emergency’. Again, I’d always thought this would eventually be ‘fixed’.

    Almost all attention toward staff was ethics, whereas it was supposed to be establishment. A number of policies talk about the need for a big Dept 3 only resulting from the lack of a real Dept 1. This is another thing I thought would be ‘fixed’, but the focus on ethics has only became more intensive and laser-pointed as the years have gone by. No EstOs, no Dept 1, outside from recruitment.

    I believe that the ‘greatest good’ theory relates to this as well. I had always considered Hubbard’s example of a cure that saves 100 and kills one to be a loose analogy, and not even a very good one. To me, the ‘greatest good’ would not encompass things like an SO member having an abortion in order to stay in the SO. But it meant this to many people that I knew. I recall a specific conversation with another SO member after I had a baby about abortions and my strong stance against this. He mentioned that line about the cure as his justification for believing abortion to be better than leaving the SO.

    I find myself going back to the threads about the endemic problems in Scientology which allowed all of this to happen. That’s a topic that I believe deserves more exploration for sure.

Trackbacks

  1. Tweets that mention “I don’t know why I couldn’t see it” « Leaving Scientology -- Topsy.com
  2. “I don’t know why I couldn’t see it” (via Leaving Scientology) « My LRH
  3. Mind Control – Can Scientologists Think Rationally? Probably Not! | Mind Control 101

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 850 other followers

%d bloggers like this: