Skip to content

The Boogeymen

September 25, 2010

I had an epiphany the other night, which goes something like this:

“If someone is telling you who to hate or fear, they are trying to manipulate you.”

It’s like the boogeyman, invented by parents in earlier times to get their children to behave. “If you don’t do as you’re told, the boogeyman will get you.” If you couldn’t be bothered to appeal to a child’s reason or good sense, you could scare them into doing what they’re told.

In his novel 1984, George Orwell describes a society that is permanently at war. During a daily ritual called “Two Minutes Hate,” the citizens are shown the image of a well-known traitor, Goldstein, and concentrate their hate on this image. Near the end of the book, O’Brien tells Winston, “The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love and justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement” (sounds like the Int Base!).  And he tells Winston, “Goldstein and his heresies will live forever. Every day, at every moment, they will be defeated, discredited, ridiculed, spat upon – and yet they will always survive. This drama…will be played out over and over again, generation after generation…”

If you want to control people, give them an enemy.

In his book The True Believer, Eric Hoffer notes that “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in God, but never without belief in a Devil”

In Hitler Speaks, former Nazi Hermann Rauschning says, “When Hitler was asked whether he thought the Jew must be destroyed, he answered: “No….we should have then to invent him. It is essential to have a tangible enemy, not merely an abstract enemy.”

Any totalitarian, fascistic government or organization must have a tangible enemy. Only then can they suspend the rights of their members, call for “heroic” contribution and self-sacrifice, and institute draconian “security” measures. The organization or group must be constantly at war. There must be a constant threat. There must be tangible enemies that are always attacking, always infiltrating. And those enemies, as Orwell notes, must live forever, the same drama of hate and fear being played out over and over and over again.

The Church of Scientology needs to have enemies. A number of people have pointed out that if the Church had simply ignored the Anonymous protests, they would have died out. But they didn’t. They exaggerated them, embellished them, turned the Anonymous phenomenon into this big, well-organized, well-funded, scary terrorist organization – something it never was. They told the press there had been “thousands” of death threats and bomb threats – yet could not produce them. A supposed “Anonymous video” had such high production value that it could never have been “pulled off the internet” as they claimed. They told their members, in breathless confidential IAS briefings (to get donations) that Anonymous was being funded by the “psychs” and by “Eli Lilly,” and that they had to pony up more and more money, make more and more personal sacrifices, to “defeat the enemy.”

And the Church is still “fighting the psychs,” long after the psychiatric establishment has ceased to have any interest in Scientology.

And now the Church has many new enemies – the “squirrels” – by which they mean anyone who has left the Church and is now exposing what really goes on behind the scenes. They distribute huge, 70-page “DA packs” and put up extensive websites, all dedicated to establishing how powerful and evil these “squirrels” are. All of this effort, you might think, is directed to the general public or the press. No, in fact, the Church could care less what the general public thinks. These vast and scary materials have one audience – Scientologists – and one purpose – to keep them sacrificing and donating money and toeing the line.

They are just the latest “boogeymen” the Church uses to scare their “children” into doing what they are told.

So when anyone, inside or outside the Church, goes on a big kick of “this is who you should hate” or “this is who you should fear,” and goes on and on about how powerful and scary this “enemy” is, I just have one response:

“Why are you trying to manipulate me?”

  1. September 25, 2010 8:44 pm

    Now this is a great posting. I immediately recollected my wife threatening our younger son with “a man” to come and threaten with a pointing finger or directly a boogeyman. Well, she failed to control him so she used those imaginary creatures to help her.

  2. Mickey permalink
    September 25, 2010 8:52 pm

    Once again, right on Jeff. As long as what keeps the attack machine alive (a continuous stream of money) and stays greased, enemies will continue to be found, used up, discarded and more created and designated newly. The cycle then repeats.

    So the key is to refuse to fund… stop paying and those at the helms of deceit and manipulation will wither, die and blow away.

  3. Watching Eyes permalink
    September 25, 2010 10:21 pm

    Brilliant analogy. I never looked at it that way but it makes total sense. I could never understand why the “church” would actually go out of it’s way to make enemies…..until I read your posting.
    Pretty spooky when you think that DM seems to know this inherently.

  4. Carol permalink
    September 25, 2010 10:47 pm

    Brilliant posting! Wow the truth revealed. To those currently involved, stand up and say No More! This will not end until you decide it will end. Take off your blinders.

  5. idle org permalink
    September 25, 2010 11:09 pm

    I like your epiphanies, Jeff…

    M. Night Shyamalan’s movie “The Village” is a great example of the above.

    In case y’all haven’t seen it, I won’t spoil it for you. I highly recommend it as both a source of entertainment and a lesson closely related to the article above.

    What I can tell you is that the mechanism of creating fear and thus controlling people was used very powerfully in said movie.

  6. Just Me permalink
    September 25, 2010 11:21 pm

    Jeff, thanks for this timely piece. It really hits home for me because I’m about to have some conversations with long-time friends who are still quite involved with the Church of Scientology.

    I don’t see these friends very often — in fact, I live pretty far from most of them. But I think it’s time to attempt some actual, real communication.

    This is going to get very real very soon. I’m not even expecting to persuade them to change their minds about anything. But I would like to make it safe for them to talk about this. And I’m very curious about what they really think.

    Have any of you tried this? Any observations? Any things you wish you’d done differently? Any suggestions?

    Just Me

  7. September 25, 2010 11:52 pm


    This is one of the best posts you’ve written.

    And you’ve written many excellent posts.

    My compliments.

    You da man!

  8. Karen#1 permalink
    September 25, 2010 11:58 pm

    Jeff ~~
    Very good essay.
    A recurring theme that resonates in what DM’s cult has evolved into is the THEM vs US.
    This has gotten accentuated more and more over time.
    The propaganda is the EVIL ENEMIES against the “Goodness” of the “Church”.
    Decade after decade more bogeyman or enemies were promoted.
    It did not stop with Psychiatry.
    o) The Church delcared All of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis, Clinical Psychotherapy, even students in MED school taking any class in the filed of the mind to be sworn enemies.

    1) All media, journalists, Reader’s Digest, Time Magazine, 60 minutes, Nightline, The Riverside Press, ABC, CBS, NBC, LA Weekly, virtually any print publication, Australian “Tonight” show,
    BBC, Panorama….you get the idea…..

    2) All pharmaceutical, all drug companies. Eli Lilli (even when they use chloral hydrate mixed with valium ~~ given to Lisa Mcpherson and Scott Campbell ~~ something that can cause brain damage)
    3) Government agencies, the French Government, the German Government, the Belgian Government, including FBI and IRS ~~ how the “Church” ranted and raved against the IRS ~~ UNTIL they got a 501C3, so for $$$ benefits, an SP became a Non SP, a bogeyman
    became a non-bogeyman when the church had a dollar advantage.
    When the FBI did the 1977 raid, they were announced as the ultimate “SPs”…
    Many US Government agenices are looked on as SP.
    But Louis Farrakhan is a FRIEND. Lord help us all.
    4) Thousands and Thousands of Declared SPs, some for merely fleeing the Church and DM atrocities.
    5)Others practicing Dianetics and Scientology outside the Official “Church”.
    6) A newer list of SPs is anyone who posts on the Internet, who whistle blows
    against DM cult’s
    darker side and their criminal conduct,
    anyone who reads Marty’s blog, anyone who talks to Marty and Mike and the lists goes on.
    This is a dichotomy “religion”
    They spout about FREEDOM, yet inside it is total TRAP.
    They have the formula of the ARC triangle, yet the way SO members are treated,
    the astounding ABUSE meted out, the formula of cutting off all comm of an RPFer for YEARS to his own spouse and family (DM invention) ~~~
    the venom they continuously prattle (an example is the hate web sites on former Ex SO vets)
    is diagonally opposite to ARC.
    Auditing is supposed to be RELEASING CHARGE on the itsa line
    and disclosing and getting it off one’s chest (as in a Catholic Confessional.)
    The paradox and dichotomy is that it is so UNSAFE to talk in session, so
    that in ACTUALITY one has to WITHOLD ina session
    The very action designed to release charge becomes
    a session of witholding charge from the Bogeyman.
    Saying anything is wrong with management is an “Enemy line.”
    Saying the thug that beats his staff David Miscavige could use improvement
    makes you an ENEMY of the “church”.
    It is safer to talk in Catholic Confessional that a “Church” of Scientology
    confessional where you will get a “not auditing you” HCO sec check
    as soon as you say something that does not
    toe the Party Line.
    The Bogey man and harsh ethics penalties are waiting and lurking just around the corner.

    • September 26, 2010 1:17 pm


      Sure would be nice to get an updated list of SPs. The one on the internet is so outdated. How is a girl to know whom to communicate with and whom to avoid? Goodness.


      • Marta permalink
        September 26, 2010 10:32 pm


        Yes! An updated SP list would mean more friends to add around the world! 🙂

      • Karen#1 permalink
        September 27, 2010 1:06 am


        1992 List. Before the Internet really EXPLODED.
        This list may well have GROWN 4x in size and quantity (at a guess)

        Click here ~~

    • Fidelio permalink
      September 26, 2010 1:22 pm

      Dear Karen,

      while I consider you one amongst the most powerful and effective whistle blowers ever, and while I am deeply grateful for your couragious and outstanding work to end the abuse –
      let me ask you: How can you NOT see, that every point you are listing (sauf Louis Farrakhan)
      directly can be traced back to LRH?

      With deep respect, Fidelio

  9. John Doe permalink
    September 26, 2010 12:07 am

    I remember seeing an attachment to a Flag Order, which listed out those groups that the church considered were “squirrels”. I think this list can be found on the net somewhere. This list was HUGE. It was several pages, single spaced, with an asterisk by the name if the group had been “disbanded”.

    LRH said that the PTS type 3 person (crazy person) is, in his mind, so beset by hostile forces that everyone is a martian or an FBI agent. The person’s state of mind has become so fragile that he sees an enemy everywhere.

    Publishing such a list and expecting one to now adopt all these squirrels as one’s own enemy, could, mechanically, create a PTS type 3 person out of a perfectly normal person.

    Life gets really sucky when everyone is agin you.

    As an aside, for years, it has been my observation that scientologists seem to be more disposed to get caught up in Great Conspiracy Theories than does the general population. Everything from 911 conspiracy to International Bankers controlling everything, to Marcabs, on and on.

    • lunamoth permalink
      September 26, 2010 6:15 pm

      I printed that list out one time (available on the internet, though it’s been a while since it was last updated – probably several pages more by now). The printout probably weighed a pound or so.
      My thought at the time was that such a tome was great physical evidence that “somebody” was Type 3.

  10. Aeolus permalink
    September 26, 2010 12:50 am

    As usual Jeff, an insightful and insight-producing blog. Reading it, I realized how much of this is going on in the world, right now. The Christian fundamentalists are whipping up fear of Muslims, in echoes of the Crusades. Al Qaida is fanning those flames with their own war against the great Shaitan (that’s us, folks). Bush #2 came up with the War on Terror, which Orwell would recognize in a heartbeat. Terrorists are the perfect boogeyman, because they could be anyone, anywhere, and they will always be there, just like Goldstein. I’m not sure how eager Obama is to keep this particular boogeyman, but it doesn’t matter because the train’s up to speed and he can’t get off.

    Speaking of Obama, he’s a boogeyman too, according to the Tea Party. He’s selling us into the slavery of socialism, don’t you know? And the Tea Party folks are going to take back “their country”. Take it back from me, I suppose, because I voted for the guy and I think he could probably do some good if the opposition would stop throwing sand in his gears. But we digress.

    Conservatives are not alone in this game, by any means. I get a fairly continuous stream of emails from and other left-wing groups telling me what disasters are going to befall us if so-and-so gets elected or such-and-such bill gets passed, and they really need my donations to help them defeat this evil. I don’t donate, but in any case the next week it’s a different candidate and different bills that are going to cause our doom. It never ends.

    Then there’s the health issues. The boogeyman is going to take away our vitamins, turn our meat radioactive and make us live on a diet of saturated fat and high-fructose corn sweetener. Fortunately, there are a number of groups who will put a stop to it, if we just send them money.

    From now on, I’m using Jeff’s response on them all. “Why are you trying to manipulate me?”

  11. lunamoth permalink
    September 26, 2010 1:21 am


    children fear the dark

    evil hides beneath the bed

    david miscavige

  12. Jason permalink
    September 26, 2010 2:35 am

    This is a great point. This is one of the many mind-control mechanisms the Church uses on its members. A year ago I was reading Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Dr Cialdini, a book that is popular in marketing circles. Although I read the book for marketing/sales advice, I couldn’t help but notice how the six primary methods to control people were also designed into Scientology.

    Reciprocity: When one is given something for free, he is more likely to give something in return.

    COS Example: “Free personality test?” or “Free lecture up-stairs!” It starts with that, but most people who give away their life savings to COS were originally made to feel indebted by some give-away course, personality test or lecture. Which reminds me of how we got Stan in:

    Commitment/Consistency: If people commit, orally or in writing, to an idea or goal, they are more likely to honor that commitment. Even if the original incentive or motivation is removed after they have already agreed, they will continue to honor the agreement.

    COS Example: Success Stories, Speeches after finishing a Bridge step, IAS statuses, Bridge Certificates, Doubt Condition Announcements, etc. Even if people realize that they still have psychosomatic illnesses after being Clear/OT VIII, they’ll still “commit” to the belief that they’ve “achieved” that state in order to be consistent. Even if people are promised certain terms to join staff, they’ll often continue on staff even if they don’t get those terms. Another example of consistency being used to control is the EPF. Cialdini says it was discovered that groups who have grueling, fraternity-like initiation rituals or militaristic bootcamps are more likely to keep their members. The members’ thinking goes, “If I put all that work into the EPF (initiation), I should continue or it would have all been for nothing!” It works on what Scientology calls “Service Facsimiles”. Nobody wants to admit they were wrong after putting in so much work (or donating so much money), so the COS gets commitment in writing, speeches, signatures, sacrifices,etc

    Social Proof: People will do things that they see other people are doing.

    COS Example: The 4 or 5 International events per year that are shown on TVs in every Org’s reception 24/7 make it seem like “everybody’s doing it”. The huge lists of IAS Patrons in the backs of Freedom Magazine also create this effect. Plus, “All the celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta are doing it” is equivalent to a Middle School student saying “C’mon, all the cool kids are doing it!” One heck of a sales pitch!

    Authority: People will tend to obey authority figures, even if they are asked to perform objectionable acts.

    COS Example: This is why LRH tried to call himself “Doctor Hubbard” in some references even though he admitted to being and “F” student and we know he was far from ever getting a PhD (I remember a dissemination pack he wrote where he called himself Dr Hubbard). The Org Board is also designed around authority and ranks for a reason. Control. Good people are willing to degrade their fellows because they were ordered to by LRH or by David Miscavidge or whatever senior they have. They’re willing to sacrifice their physical and mental health with long hours of work and no sleep for Authority. People give away their life savings because DM says the Squirrels or Psychs are attacking at the IAS needs it. Or they’ll spend $100k on going Clear, a condition LRH promised in Dianetics, which looks like an authoritative and scientific text even though no scientific studies are included in it.

    Liking: People are easily persuaded by other people that they like.

    COS Example: LRH was such a nice, charismatic guy! Remember how friendly people were when you first started Scientology? Or when you finished your first course! Remember how happy the reges were to see you? They even gave you cookies, coffee and tea (see “reciprocity” above). Gosh, they were so NICE and with such HIGH ARC we just couldn’t help but like them!

    Scarcity: Perceived scarcity will generate demand.

    COS Example: There is nothing so scarce as a OT VIII which only a thousand people in the universe have achieved… and if it costs $300k, it must be good!

    Those are the six primary methods of persuasion but the book is filled with many other methods. If you read the book, I’m sure you’ll notice many other ways Scientology uses persuasive methods to influence people. I don’t believe it’s an accident. With his “history” in Naval Intelligence, I think LRH knew exactly what he was doing.

    • Cool Observer permalink
      September 26, 2010 9:16 am

      Excellent observation. Nothing in Scientology is left to chance, everything is planned. People are being manipulated the very second they step into an org or sit down at a stress test table. All it would take is to read the dissemination drill to unmask this deceptive organisation.

    • lunamoth permalink
      September 26, 2010 3:51 pm


      This is fascinating. Some of points touched on in your post have been subjects of other articles on
      this or Marty’s site, but I’ve never seen it all put together like this.

      It’s obvious now that Hubbard most definitely knew what he was doing when he created the structure of what would become the scientology culture. I never realized until this moment how much “tech” he put into controlling and manipulating a person from first contact, all the way through to the upper end of the bridge.

      Nobody likes to believe they are easily manipulated and this is a huge reason people inside don’t look at the truth. For many it’s not the money they’ve invested but the misplaced trust, support and belief in in the “church” that is ultimately so difficult to confront.

      • Cool Observer permalink
        September 26, 2010 6:33 pm


        may you have many more epiphanies 😉

        About the aspect of manipulation: Yes, we don’t like to think we can be manipulated, but we have no idea how suggestible we really are. I’m talking about everybody, even people who make a living by manipulating others…people in advertising.

        Have a look at this video, it’s truly amazing. I think it also proves that anyone can fall into a (mind) trap, if the “trapper” knows what to do to achieve his desired EP.

      • lunamoth permalink
        September 26, 2010 8:44 pm

        Cool Observer, that was brilliant!

  13. OT8... whatever! permalink
    September 26, 2010 5:15 am

    Wow Jeff, an absolutely brilliant, spot-on article. You put into words so eloquently exactly what I was thinking. I always enjoy reading your posts. If someone like you was running Scientology, we would have a much saner group 🙂

    • lunamoth permalink
      September 26, 2010 3:53 pm

      OT 8 … (whatever)

      The idea of Jeff (or someone like him) ever wanting to run Scientology or anything remotely like it
      is pretty hilarious.

      • OT8... whatever! permalink
        September 28, 2010 7:33 am

        How do you know?

      • lunamoth permalink
        September 28, 2010 10:30 pm

        Ask him yourself.

    • Aeolus permalink
      September 26, 2010 10:10 pm

      I believe it was Will Rogers who said the best choice for a political office was someone who had no desire for the job. Probably applies to the CoB post too. Hey , maybe Jeff IS the right guy for that!

  14. September 26, 2010 6:39 am

    Yes, Jeff, you are 100% dead on balls accurate lol.

    Last year when Tom Cruise, Miscavige’s bff and him were at the IAS event
    in England, it was overhead that Tom said to Miscavige, that he couldn’t
    wait to fight the SP’s. Meanwhile, his good friend John Travolta was in
    the front row grieving the loss of his son. But Tom was in glee.

    Those big bad SP’s that Tom sooooo couldn’t wait to fight, turned out
    to be, none other than Marc Headley et al lol.

    The IAS events are one big reg fest for Miscavige and I’m sure he
    even has a battle plan on who he will reg that night to bring home
    the bacon for his so called wars.

    After all, somebody’s gotta pay for all those balloons lol.

  15. Ackerland permalink
    September 26, 2010 8:41 am

    The sad irony is that what you are writing even applies to our democratic states in the west. The Co$ does practice control through fear to the extreme, but they’re not the only ones that are guilty of doing what you’re saying. After the fall of the soviet union a new bogeyman was established. Now, it is Al-Qaida.
    They’re dangerous as they have demonstrated. But they don’t have the means for global annihilation like the soviets back during cold war. And look how many resources we’re spending, and how many basic rights we’re eliminating, just to fight this new threat.

  16. Cool Observer permalink
    September 26, 2010 10:17 am

    Enemies are necessary to strengthen the ties among group members, it’s “a shouder to shoulder crusade”. The harder it is to reach a goal, the more valuable it becomes and the higher the motivation to achieve it. The struggle is cathartic, what would a group of heroes do without antagonist forces?

    But I suspect the main reason is paranoia. Hubbard always felt surrounded by enemies even before he started his Dianetics Foundation, and it became progressively worse over the years. Rampant paranoia has always been a part of Scientology, and if Miscavige wasn’t paranoid to begin with, he quickly fell victim to it soon after taking over.

  17. Good Wishes permalink
    September 26, 2010 1:12 pm

    Scientology starts with fear. It starts on the boogeyman that you are not as good as other people (ie you are held back by your ruin) and keeps a hold of you with the boogeyman of psychs and media.

    It starts with the hook – “We will find your RUIN!
    Then we will fix it. Then you will be better than anyone else, Superman!
    Fame, fortune, love will all be yours if you can just fix what is wrong with you.”

    Then it hooks with a promise of turning average Joe into Super Joe.
    Ever noticed how arrogant Scientologists in general are?
    They have been fed with the promise, no, the absolute certainty that they are right, they are better, they KNOW. But arrogance is merely the external manifestation of internal fear, fear of failure, fear of not being the best, fear of being found out that they are not indeed superman.

    What if the hook was: lets find your GIFT.

    Lets not worry about your stutter, or unhappy marriage or dead end job.
    Hell 80% of the population probably have similar issues, its pretty much part of the life experience.
    Lets find out what truly makes you shine instead, what makes you not just “the stutterer with the lousy marriage and crappy job”, but the man who can make the most amazing ships in bottles; or sings beautifully; or calms abused children with gentle stories told off the cuff.

    Some people’s gifts that are less tangible but no less wonderful, the woman who just makes you feel calm and happy, simply by being with her.

    So here you are, wondering what makes you unique and special among the billions of us. What makes you superman.

    Is it really by finding and fixing or trying to fix a ruin. What actually is a ruin anyway? Its a comparison between you and other people.
    But we are not all alike.
    We do not all interact with the world in the same way. So who determines the standard of the ideal human? And why would we want to be that standard?
    Who sold that standard to us?

    Perhaps even on a deeper spiritual level, we chose to experience life through the lenses of the so-called ruin in order to learn and grow. Perhaps its not what we can’t do that makes us; but rather what we can inherently do and be.

    Once we understand the fact that we can’t be prima ballerinas when we grew to 5’8 at 12 years of age and blessed with a build like a shotputter, then its time to understand that our gifts will take us onto a different path. Its what gives us those shiny, sparkly moments of joy that helps us cope with the humdrum job or marriage. It may even give shine enough light on areas of our lives that aren’t happy, to allow us to move away from it; but then again, it might not.
    No one was promised a perfect life or an easy journey.
    We can certainly not pay anyone else for it to happen either.

    Its life lottery. Some of us win the jackpot, some of us just get a fleeting thrill when it seems our numbers are going to come up.

    Being unhappy, disgruntled, broke, heart broken, depressed is part of the journey of life, just as is joy and peace and contentment. But its all ephemeral, always changing as we interact with the world.

    To Scientologists still enthralled with the tech, I ask, would you be reading this is Scientology honestly wanted you to “find your gift” and worked with you to bring it to the fore.

    Would you find more joy in life, or maybe just come to an acceptance of your life, if you focussed more on your strengths rather than putting full focus on and try to hammer out your perceived weaknesses?
    Bearing in mind some “weaknesses”can never be rectified, so are you on a one way ticket to nowhere, forever focussing on what you aren’t; and rarely focussing one what you are?

    If it is giving you great personal pleasure and joy to spend hours of your life auditing out body thetans, then that is wonderful.
    I mean that sincerely. Take joy wherever you can.

    But if its preventing you from exploring your joy, or finding your gift that brings you joy, then try to remember an earlier time when your life wasn’t limited by manufactured fear, the Boogeyman.

    • Shaman permalink
      September 26, 2010 5:59 pm

      “What if the hook was: lets find your GIFT.”

      Wow! Very profound! So true!

    • lunamoth permalink
      September 26, 2010 8:55 pm

      Good Wishes,

      I don’t know what the extent of your own first-hand experience has been with scientology, but judging by what you’ve written here it was either very sad from the beginning or else you have no personal experience of your own and come to your profoundly all-knowing judgement by way of the reported experiences of others.

      Have you read Counterfeit Dreams? If not, I highly recommend it. What Jeff describes when writing about his initial discovery of scientology is very similar to my own experience and those of many people who got into it around the same time we did. It was VERY MUCH about discovering one’s gifts, and not in the sense of becoming better than anyone else – it was about discovering how vast was our potential. It was about breaking boundaries and going beyond limits.

      To understand it, and to be taken seriously by anyone with our experiences, you have to distinguish between the philosophy of scientology, the culture of scientology (different at that time but still imperfect) and the management/church of scientology. To collapse those into one identical identity won’t lead you to understand anything.


    • lunamoth permalink
      September 26, 2010 8:58 pm

      Good Wishes

      As a side-note, I have never in 30-plus years in the church, been “ruined.” Neither has the husband, nor our good friends, also out. Fear, of not being good enough or of “getting worse” was never a part of that equation.

  18. Cowboy Poet permalink
    September 26, 2010 2:59 pm

    Befogging the obvious with eloquent nonsense.

    Third Party Law used to work people up into a frenzy.
    Isn’t it just so bizarre to see these things unwittingly imposed upon those who SHOULD see through it?

    It’s really quite a paradox that you have to get away from Scientology to use any of the accurate things that are found in it.

    Good post, Jeff.

  19. earthmother permalink
    September 26, 2010 4:05 pm

    Great article, Jeff.

    The hatred of any group or individual was something I had a hard time understanding when I was in the CofS. My former Anglican church held no such views or positions on anyone, or any group. We expended our time, money and talent in charitable organizations that were truly helping people. No pressure was ever brought to bear on anyone who couldn’t donate.

    @Aeolus, I also receive requests for donations to a variety of groups, many the same as you mentioned in your post, and I don’t send them $ either. I am a tree hugger at heart, and so like to support groups that help make our planet a saner place to be in by actually having a sane place to be in! One such group is the Sempervirens Fund. They have been purchasing redwood forests with matched donations for years to connect several of the parks in the Santa Cruz area. Someday, I will go there and revel in the scent of the forest, stand in the shadows of trees hundreds of years old, and feel connected to the web of life, fearing no one. For me, all the yap about “salvaging the planet” makes me thing of a bumper sticker I saw years ago “Earth First. We’ll log the other planets later”

    The constant fear mongering that the CofS is generating diminishes the human spirit. It is quite introverting. It took me a while to realize that the scary world I had been warned about really wasn’t that bad.

    Question authority!

    To the IAS, and DM I say,

    When you say jump, we say go f*#k yourself!

    • lunamoth permalink
      September 26, 2010 6:00 pm


      To the IAS, and DM I say, When you say jump, we say go f*#k yourself!

      I want THAT bumper sticker!

    • Aeolus permalink
      September 26, 2010 10:07 pm

      Earthmother, you and I share the treehugger habit. And I didn’t mean to suggest that one shouldn’t contribute to a good cause. I have in the past made donations to the Nature Conservancy, Costeau Society and the like, and will probably do so again now that the Church doesn’t have their hand in my wallet. And I’ll look into that Sempervirens Fund. It sounds like a good one.

  20. September 26, 2010 9:31 pm

    On one the tapes LRH said that a group needs an enemy –This was on the Exec Status One Course I too in the 90’s, He said ” why did I decide on Psychiatry” I don’t know, it could have been any enemy group, that doesn’t matter, what matters is the group is united in the oposition of an enemy. I just chose Psychiatry because it was there.’

    I have met similiar comments from other members who did the entire course. It truly was a shock to me.

  21. Soderqvist1 permalink
    September 27, 2010 7:35 am

    L. Ron Hubbard invented enemies in order to direct your attention to them so he could hide from you what he did behind your back! In example; he told the Scientologists that he didn’t earn any money from the church, yet, he horded lot of money in foreign bank accounts in Luxemburg and Liechtenstein meanwhile staffs lived like slaves. L. Ron Hubbard did know that he was a conman so he couldn’t face Paulette Cooper’s book; “the Total scandals of Scientology” in court. So he ordered GO to attack her with his “Mafia Methods”. L. Ron Hubbard even thanked Nancy Many’ s team for a successful operation. But the Scientologists were too hypnotized by Hubbard to have any independent thought like; “wait a minute here! Why do we attack her, and try to frame her instead of go to the court and point out how much lies there are in the book, if Scientology is based on truth, in example “as-is”?

    Paulette Cooper Vs Hubbard

    Money to Hubbard 1

    Money to Hubbard 2

    Soderqvist1: Btw, Paulette Cooper was born in Auschwitz, and it was a personal thing for her to stand up for Hubbard’s victims!

  22. Fidelio permalink
    September 27, 2010 12:26 pm

    one week ago I started out just as a mental exercise to assume that Hubbard was a deep-rooted SP from the very outset. And I examined the scene from that pre-assumption….

    The more I did that exercise, the more realizations came to light and suddenly, everything fell in place!!

    The good what we treasured and defend and recognize as deeply beneficial was the BAIT he needed to get the best people on board on his goal to dominate “the whole cockeyed universe”.

    He made sure that he learned all about the bait necessary. And those who helped him to form that bait were ruthlessly shot and burnt at the time as soon as he had what he needed.

    Today, I realize that the pre-assumption that Hubbard was a good hat was the down-held seven in my mind which made me run round and round to desperately understand what was going on and reconcile the atrocities with the “ARC” and “care” he allegedly was emanating.

    Hell, no, what I realize as love and care was the love and care of the best of the best – and Hubbard was shrewd enough to leech and suck on it to an extant that is mind-boggling and probably unseen before on that planet with regard to spiritual enslavement.

    In my books, Miscavige is Hubbard’s perfect “headbirth” product and all his alleged “alter-is of the tech” is just his pathetic attempt to make Hubbard’s conglomerate less frictional and incoherent.

    Doing that exercise mentioned above enabled me to reconcile all information – good and bad – about Hubbard, the Sea Org… I mean ALL.

    And thus the struggle has ended for me . The mess we are witnessing “makes total sense”.

    I cannot thank Jeff enough for his blog, I cannot thank all the whistleblowers enough (no matter if they ever or never would agree with my viewpoint!), – – – they all helped me with their brutal honesty to find my inner peace with my 22 ys deep involvement in SCN. I am through with it.

    Thank you all!!


    • Cool Observer permalink
      September 27, 2010 7:11 pm


      What a cognition this must have been…it does sound a little bit like a reverse “success story”, you seem to have discovered a piece of workable technology that actually delivers results. 🙂
      Many people struggle with the glaring contradictions found in Hubbard’s writing, but if one is willing to assume a neutral position, two quick questions is all it takes to unravel the whole mess.

      1) Would a kind, compassionate and peace-loving idealist write about how to infiltrate organisations and governments, how to destroy dissidents and critics, how to lie successfully, how to recruit with deceptive methods, how to make more and more money etc.? The answer is: NO.

      2) Would a cunning, narcicistic and ruthless man, obsessed with money and power, write beautiful, high-toned and compassionate passages to mask his true agenda? The answer is: YES.
      There is a lot of information out there, especially data about LRH before Dianetics. This explains pretty much everything. In 1938 Hubbard wrote that he intended to “smash his name into history”, and that he did achieve, to the detriment of many people.

      Now that you have successfully self-audited the LRH Implant, I welcome you back to the wog world. 🙂

      • September 27, 2010 8:43 pm

        to Cool Observer,

        LRH’s or Hubbard’s writings, the glaring contradictions, were just his research, his journey. Writing all the stuff about destroying your critics etc, that was him embracing his darkside.

        Here’s an example, he wrote the policy about disconnection, after he put it into play, he saw the results, then he canceled it, because he saw the pain it created.

        David Miscavige, put that policy back after LRH died.

        You can see how LRH experienced, learned, grew, evolved. Not everything in life is goodness and light. And after all, he was a man who was not perfect, he had flaws. Just like other people. But his intentions were good, not evil. He really loved mankind.

        You might now agree with it, but I have to point out one thing, he had the balls to put it in writing, something Hitler never did.

      • Valkov permalink
        September 28, 2010 2:08 am

        Cool Observer,

        Would a kind, compassionate and idealistic nation drop 2 atomic bombs on 2 cities full of civilians, women, and children, when there was every indication that Japan was already willing to surrender?

        The United States of America did, in 1945.

        Life might just be a little more complex at times, than simply putting white hats and black hats on people to designate individuals as globally and unequivocably “good” or “bad”.

      • Cool Observer permalink
        September 28, 2010 7:44 am


        I respectfully disagree. All your information about Hubbard stems from a source that was never interestred in revealing an unbiased view about the man, it’s all propaganda. I doubt you ever looked at the documented facts, because they’re “enttheta”.
        Ghandi was human as well, but he never “embraced his dark side”, like many other true humanitarians. Whatever Hubbarde may have “researched”, nothing has ever been proven, including his “scientific” findings. Heavy smoking does not protect you from lung cancer, the human body is not immune against gamma rays, we did not eveolve from clams and the words “It turn my blood to water” does not cause leukemia, even thiugh Hubbard claimed it did. He even claimed to have cured eight leukemia victims with Dianetics. Any proof? Of course not. Despite Hubbard’s claims, after 60 years not a single blind man had his sight restored, not a single lame person had his leg mended.

        When Hubbard canceled disconnection, he must have had a good reason for it, but not because he saw the pain it caused. A compassionate person would have never written this policy in the first place, everybody knows how painful it is to be separated from loved ones. Hubbard also “canceled” fair game in 1968, but that was only for PR reasons. Fair game has never stopped. Google “Operation Freakout”.

        Hubbard loved only one person: Himself. Here are a few terms Hubbard came up with to describe the people he allegedly loved so much: Wog; raw meat; mark; quarry; common, garden variety humanoid; run-of-the-mill human being. And what about “bodies in the shop”, terminals, 2D? All this sounds like contempt to me.

      • Cool Observer permalink
        September 28, 2010 8:05 am


        I have thought about your comment, and I agree that life is very complex. Things are often hard to understand. The US govenrment already knew that the conflict would continue with the USSR, so those bombs were a warning not to underestimate America’s willingness to stand up to the Soviet Union. In the end it’s all politics.
        This was definitely a tough decision to make, I don’t think it was planned and executed in cold blood, unlike the atrocities commited by Hitler, Stalin and others. I don’t compare Hubbard to one of these tyrants (although there are many who believe this to be appropriate), but after spending much time reading about Hubbard a clear pattern emerges. It’s a step by step program to manipulate and control. And if you don’t want to see it, you never will.

      • September 28, 2010 5:30 pm

        to Cool Observer ,

        you wrote: “all your information about Hubbard stems from a source that was never interestred in revealing an unbiased view about the man, it’s all propaganda. I doubt you ever looked at the documented facts, because they’re “enttheta”.”

        You’re right I have an unbiased view about the man, dude lol.

        Here’s one for ya, I knew the man last life, I was in the sea org .

        But I know, you don’t care cause you want proof of that too. I love how you think you know LRH and what he stood for. You never met him, you never talked to him and you sure didn’t get any auditing from him lol.

        So who are you to judge based on documents you found online? From all those different sources lol.

        You can disagree with me all you want, and that’s ok. But don’t assume you know me.

        And for the record, I did my own investigation recently and looked at “entheta” documents lol. They’re just docs dude, of someone else’s viewpoint.

      • cool observer permalink
        September 28, 2010 8:42 pm


        I’m not sure what to make of your answer…but I fear that you’re serious. Never mind. When you met Hubbard in your last life, you should have asked him why he used terms like wog or raw meat for the people he intended to save.
        I think we should call it quits here, because this discussion isn’t going anywhere.

      • Valkov permalink
        September 28, 2010 10:22 pm

        Cool Observer, I thank you for being thoughtful.

        What you seem to be saying is the atom bombing of 2 Japanese cities was a “heads on a pike” type action, actually directed at the Soviet Union. Making an example of Japan to scare or warn other countries off from aggression against the US.

        Such a “kind, compassionate, idealistic” action by the US…..! And it was premeditated, calculated, and all that.

        The Soviet Union was actually an ally of the US at the time, ya know? Superficially at least.

        I actually have quite a broad awareness of Hubbard’s good and bad sides. I have posted quite a bit about this topic on the forum Geir Isene started, The Scientology Forum. I recommend spending some time reading there, were these topics are covered extensively.

        What I object to to is simplistic, black and white thinking and characterizations, from either side – proscientology or antiscientology.

        The probelm is not that I won’t be able to see what I don’t want to see, but that a person who discovers Hubbard’s so-called “dark side” is then unable to understand how the same person could have a “light side”. It causes too much cognitive dissonance. A person has trouble grasping that Hubbard could potentially be both good and evil.

        That the same person could apparently mistreat some people and apparently treat others well, could produce both constructive and destructive policies and methods seems to baffle some people.

        I really don’t see why it should. But I will say, you will never understand Hubbard or scientology unless you understand the theory and practice of scientology as in his books and lectures, distinguish between the scientology philosophy, Hubbard’s opinions, and the clinical practice, which is what “the tech” refers to.

        It is a logical fallacy to say that “Hubbard was a monster, therefore his theories are false, or his tech doesn’t work”.

        It’s probable you could find many examples in history, of nasty folk coming up with constructive ideas or methods. Henry Ford was not a nice man in some ways, but his cars run and the company he started is still going strong employing many people.

        Were the folks who decided to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki evil? It was an evil and unnecessary act. But at the time, someone thought it was necessary or the best course of action.

        I’ll throw it back to you, by paraphrasing you and asking you: Is it really true that if you don’t want to see Hubbard’s positive accomplishments and contributions, you never will?

      • Cool Observer permalink
        September 29, 2010 9:22 am


        what I find puzzling is the fact that many independent Scientologits insist that every person has a dark side which he occasionally embraces. That is the only explanation that allows them to continue seeing Hubbard as a champion of human rights and a warrior for world peace, but this is simply not true. And if they actually confront some of his nasty actions and policies, then they say “Well, he had his flaws, after all he was human.”
        Great humanitarians, people who really wanted to make this world a better place, may or may not have had a dark side, but if they had it, they kept this to themselves. On the Apolle Hubbard once forced several people to push a peanut around the deck – wth their noses. One of those men was pushing sixty. Since the deck was rugged and full of splinters, they were soon leaving trails of blood behind them. The family of the elderly man were crying hysterically, but Hubbard gleefully spurred on the victims to go faster. You can’t explain that away, I’ve read that Miscavigre forced Mike Rinder to crawl like a dog for weeks as a punishment, and I ask you: Where’s the difference?
        You have probably read Kathy Gold’s reply to Soderqvist 1. She appears to be upset that he alleges that a nice man never would have written the disconnection policy in the first place. She argues that humans are flawed and make mistakes, so the fact that Hubbard made the mistake to enact disconnection proves that he’s human, therefore Soderqvist1 attacks Hubbared for being human. Wow, I’m actually lost for words. Please don’t tell me Hubbard couldn’t have known how harmful disconnection was untiol he saw it in action, that is something no human being has to learn.

  23. lunamoth permalink
    September 27, 2010 6:14 pm

    Wow, Fidelio, when you say you are through with it, I believe you. Truly a great thing!

    Our viewpoints don’t completely align, yours and mine, but why do they have to? And who says neither will change over time? I’m happy for you, and that’s enough!


  24. September 28, 2010 1:54 am

    There is a technology to brainwashing.

    L Ron Hubbard worked it into every part of Scientology that he could. He created an onslaught that is very difficult to free one’s self from. But it can be done.

    It is happening every day.

    Great work, Jeff. This blog is awesome.

    • September 28, 2010 4:14 am

      To Alanzo, aka Allen, can you elaborate on your comment a little bit more, please lol 🙂

      • Valkov permalink
        September 28, 2010 8:29 am

        Naw Kathy, he’s just jumping on the evaluation bandwagon. It’s “Let’s pile on LRH time, he’s not here to defend himself….”

        Anyway, Al would just post the same-old same-old cherry-picked quotes of LRH he always posts. He’s got them on a rolodex or something….. at least he sometimes attempts to dox, unlike some of the others who just roll out their evaluations in much the same way DM does.

        I tend to think when these guys get going, the best thing to do is just join and start chanting “LRH is doo-doo! LRH is doo-doo! LRH is super doo-doo! LRH is mega doo-doo!”

        You know, get in the potty humor spirit of things. Maybe out doo-doo them….

        It’s like a pissing contest, ya know?

  25. Soderqvist1 permalink
    September 28, 2010 7:15 am

    Kathy Gold: Here’s an example, he wrote the policy about disconnection, after he put it into play, he saw the results, then he canceled it, because he saw the pain it created.

    Soderqvist1: only a psychopath would writ such an afoul policy in the first place!
    And if he changes anything, it will not have anything to do with kindness or empathy. Ken Urquhart was his butler at the time, but nowadays is an independent scientologist has this to say about it!

    Ken Urquhart
    [Fair Game was officially repudiated by L. Ron Hubbard in order to appease the New Zealand Government, but the act was a sham, a lie, a piece of paper which he had no intention of honoring in deed. I know that because he announced as much right in front of me when the news came that he needed to issue the cancellation of Fair Game policy. His evident intention was to suppress the overt practice of Fair Game for a while but to continue the practice when he felt it was needed, but not get caught at it.]

    Soderqvist1: so the matter is about what he could get away with!

    Kathy Gold: But his intentions were good, not evil. He really loved mankind.

    Soderqvist1: if that is the case why did he put small children in the chain locker?
    Read this topic and answer me why was he so cruel?
    (Btw, the chain-locker is the precursor to David Miscavige’ s PS-Hole.)

    Soderqvist1: why did he invent the Kali ceremonies if he was a humanitarian?
    Read her story!

    The Commodore Arrives by Monica Pignotti

    Soderqvist1: L. Ron Hubbard even wrote to the court in 1983!

    L. Ron Hubbard: 10. Since there apparently have been specific allegations of wrongdoing by David Miscavige, I wish to take this opportunity to communicate my unequivocal confidence in David Miscavige, who is a long time devoted Scientologist, a trusted associate, and a good friend to me.

    Soderqvist1: thus the author of all the SP/PTS tech in the world, and author of Science of Survival, the science of predicting Human behavior consider David Miscavige a trusted associate and a good friend!

    • September 28, 2010 5:54 pm

      to Soderqvist1,

      Soderqvist1: only a psychopath would writ such an afoul policy in the first place!

      Really, how about a human being. That’s what human beings do. You’re hitting LRH on this cause he wrote it in the first place? Ok, doesn’t make sense, he was being overt, direct and honest and then he saw what happened and changed it, you know start change, stop, a cycle of action. It’s normal, this is how human beings operate and you want to hit the man on being normal.

      We all make mistakes, he did too. He wasn’t perfect, but per your communication you want to make him perfect, like he did that so therefore he is evil.

      And that affidavit that David Miscavige got, dude, that was a document for court because his son was suing LRH for money. He split, he wanted to be alone, he wanted his space and his son from the prodding of his wife took him to court for money. He wanted money from his old man because he felt he deserved it, was entitled to it and because his wifey told him so. At that time, David Miscavige was a trusted and good friend because he handled a cycle of action for LRH. He got the job done. To LRH, he gave Miscavige a commendation, to show his thank you. All David Miscavige did was get proof that he was alive for the courts.

      Miscavige took that and spun it for his PR.

      Are you a robot? You take things that are written and you look at them with a very narrow view, this or that. Life is not a this or that. Life is real and it bleeds.

    • Valkov permalink
      September 28, 2010 9:19 pm

      Soderkvist, another great “cherry-picker” of out-of -context quotes! Answer me this: If wife is abused andbeatenby her husband, ought she escape and move away from him, and perhaps get a court order to restrain him from coming near her?

      According to you, this would be “a foul policy of disconnection” on her part, right? Very very bad, to want to save her own life and have nothing to do with the man who was beating her….

      Yes, enforced disconnection as a political tool is a very bad thing. And NO, disconnection as a self-determined action chosen by an individual is a human right. No-one should be forced to associate with others he does not want to associate with.

      Enforced connection is just as bad as enforced disconnection. Your posts make it seem like you have no familiarity with the actual scientology philosophy, but are just taking quotes from critic sites only.

  26. Soderqvist1 permalink
    September 29, 2010 7:15 am

    Soderqvist1: Valkov, I have self-determined disconnected from my mother, I have not seen her in the last 20 years. Here are three examples of forced disconnection in the pre-Miscavige era, one of them is written by HCO Ken Urquhart!

    Soderqvist1: Kathy Gold you claim that I am robot with a narrow point of view!
    But you are not broad enough to read and comment upon my links.
    And you also claim that disconnection, which is part of fair game policy, was a mistake, and thus cancelled. When you are so broad why haven’t you commented about Ken Urquhart statement that is was a lie? This is what the court has to say about it!

    Superior Court of Los Angeles 1984
    In addition to violating and abusing its own members civil-rights, the organization over the years with its “Fair Game” doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the Church whom it perceives as enemies. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and the bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.

    LRH’s wife, Mary Sue Hubbard is also plaintiff herein. On the one hand she certainly appeared to be a pathetic individual. She was forced from her post as controller, convicted and imprisoned as a felon, and deserted by her husband. On the other hand her credibility leaves much to be desired. She struck the familiar pose of not seeing, hearing or knowing any evil. Yet she was the head of the Guardian Office for years and among other things, authored the infamous order “GO 121669” which directed culling of supposedly confidential P.C. files/folders for purposes of internal security.

    It is of course, rather ironic that the person who authorized G.O. 121669 should complain about invasion of privacy. The practice of culling supposedly confidential “P.C. folders or files” to obtain information for purposes of intimidation and or harassment is repugnant was no respector of anyone’s civil rights, particularly that of privacy.

    Soderqvist1: you have also claimed that L. Ron Hubbard wanted to be alone, and wanted his space, and away from his son’s juridical claims! That is an understatement!

    High Court of London Mr. Justice Latey 1984
    Mr. Hubbard went into hiding in 1980. Attempts have been made to secure his attendance at various hearings in the Courts of the United States. They have all failed because be cannot be found and served. The evidence is clear and conclusive: Mr. Hubbard is a charlatan and worse as are his wife Mary Sue Hubbard (she has been convicted of criminal offences in the United States in connection with Scientology and imprisoned) and the clique at the top privy to the Cult’s activities.

    What happens to the Money?
    Mr. Armstrong is in a better position than most to know where the money goes. His evidence, together with other evidence, shows that much of it goes into the pocket of Hubbard and he has described how it is “laundered”.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: