Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Note to self: Stop arguing with Auditor's Toad!
Scientology's End - less wishful thinking please
- Thread starter FascinatedNeverIn
- Start date
Queenmab321
Patron Meritorious
I don't know what will become of COS, but I think that as long as they manage to provide a narrative about what it means to be human that people find compelling and valuable (however absurd or fucked up it may be), they'll continue to exist in some form or another. They're selling a belief system that provides answers to questions about life and death and meaning that, at the end of the day, don't have answers, and many people long for the certainty and purpose they find in such answers. I think it's possible that Scientology will evolve into something less malignant over time. It's also possible it will become increasingly marginal until it's no more than the obsession of obscure cranks. I think the exposure it's currently experiencing makes either outcome more likely. I certainly believe the efforts of all those who challenge the Church and hold it accountable for its crimes are noble.
secretiveoldfag
Silver Meritorious Patron
Hoping Scientology might evolve into something less harmful as time goes on is wishful thinking.
Scientology has been evolving into something more and more harmful for the past 60 years.
It is incapable of being anything but an evil lie, a damaging scam. The only one to benefit is the [strike]man[/strike] dwarf at the top.
JustSheila
Crusader
This is the correct tech, the only tech. Now I've seen you and others all saying you know how to do it but saying you know and knowing you know is just not the same as knowing how to know, you see? So before you say you can taken up these big boots in the sky and wrestle these grizzly bear cultists, there are two rules that you must know. These two rules will save your life and the lives of every man woman and child on this planet. These rules are so important, they must be included at the beginning of every checksheet, every course pack and printed on every square of toilet tissue left in any public restroom. This universe and every universe that ever existed and every universe and galaxy we will ever create are at the mercy of these two rules:
RULE NUMBER ONE:
Dwarfs always explode.
RULE NUMBER TWO:
Cults and their bridges implode.
So you see then? No you don't, because there was never anything there to see in the first place, you see? Now I've spent all my time teaching you these things and building it up and teaching you how to take it down, so that as I leave for Target II, I hope you finally understand that Target I is yet to be destroyed. That's why it's called a TARGET, you see?
Have a go. I"ll see you on the other side.
Love,
She-Ron
Gadfly
Crusader
I like this explanation.
I would add that Scientology provides (and heavily enforces) a VERY STRICT STRUCTURE and a very RIGID framework of exact belief and detailed behavior.
As long as there are people who need it all spelled out, in regards to almost every aspect of life and existence, then there will be people who gravitate to the micro-managed mindset of Scientology. Luckily, life IS change, all things MUST pass, every person eventually grows and evolves, and that means out and away from the orbit of ultra-controlled Scientology.
As long as there are people who require over-simplistic explanations to all-that-is, who need to feel that they "understand it all about everything" (with total certainty), and who tend towards fanatical participation in religions and other movements, there will be groups such as Scientology.
Certainty in SELF is fine, and even vital, but certainty in anything else is nuts - and transitory. A major problem with Scientology is that it demands and requires a building of certainty (via slick indoctrination) in a great many things outside of self - in Hubbard, RTC, the "Tech", the goals, the ideas, and on and on.
To me, the Universe brings to life (manifests) what exists in the minds and hearts of various people. Scientology is not immune from that phenomena. Scientology exists because certain people need it, these people need it to evolve - but in the end, they eventually evolve AWAY from Scientology as they truly learn and grow. Of course, the lessons they learn have little or nothing to do with the subject materials and practices of Scientology, but with larger important life lessons involving things such as betrayal, pain, suffering, loss, hope, respect, trust, love, and compassion.
Last edited:
David C Gibbons
Ex-Scientology Peon
Special, there a LOT of flavors of Buddhism, and many of them have large and complex pantheons. In the very beginning, Buddhism was not theistic, but it mutated a lot as it spread across Asia.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Note to self: Stop arguing with Auditor's Toad!
Note to PT : AT is harmless as a post.
SpecialFrog
Silver Meritorious Patron
I raised Buddhism as an example of something that is typically considered a religion that did not fit Cat Squirrel's definition as an indication that this definition was inadequate.
People seem to be interpreting this question as a statement on my part that Buddhism is not a religion, which is neither something I said nor something I think.
Personally, I think you can't define religion in such a way as to include Buddhism but exclude Scientology without tying it to the authenticity of the beliefs of its founder or his / her motivations.
This may be viable, but it likely would also exclude Mormonism unless you add other caveats.
Gadfly
Crusader
The term "religion" means many things to many different people.
Scientology used "legal tactics" such as "winning an argument", along with "manipulating agreement" to pass itself off as a "religion". It was simple really. Hubbard ordered his underlings to "research" and "investigate", along with using surveys, to find out what "passes as a religion". Then Hubbard made sure to add these things into Scientology so that it would "pass the test".
The term and concept of "religion" is a large bin where just about anything can be tossed that moves a bit past or beyond the "physical" and "material".
Of course, some Christians don't want things like Satanism or Paganism to be viewed as a "legitimate religion", but much like beauty, it is in the eyes of the beholder.
To me, while I care little for religions at all, anything that involves anything past the raw material reality could be tossed into the bin of religion.
It is just a label. To me it is meaningless. It ends up as a debate over agreed-upon and/or unusual definitions. What is or isn't a religion? Who gives a rat's ass? :confused2:
Of course, in Hubbard's manipulative game of agreement, it matters a great deal what is or isn't viewed as a religion in any society or country (because he uses that to his advantage).
Scientology used "legal tactics" such as "winning an argument", along with "manipulating agreement" to pass itself off as a "religion". It was simple really. Hubbard ordered his underlings to "research" and "investigate", along with using surveys, to find out what "passes as a religion". Then Hubbard made sure to add these things into Scientology so that it would "pass the test".
The term and concept of "religion" is a large bin where just about anything can be tossed that moves a bit past or beyond the "physical" and "material".
Of course, some Christians don't want things like Satanism or Paganism to be viewed as a "legitimate religion", but much like beauty, it is in the eyes of the beholder.
To me, while I care little for religions at all, anything that involves anything past the raw material reality could be tossed into the bin of religion.
It is just a label. To me it is meaningless. It ends up as a debate over agreed-upon and/or unusual definitions. What is or isn't a religion? Who gives a rat's ass? :confused2:
Of course, in Hubbard's manipulative game of agreement, it matters a great deal what is or isn't viewed as a religion in any society or country (because he uses that to his advantage).
afaceinthecrowd
Gold Meritorious Patron
I felt a great disturbance in the Force in November, as
if thousands of voices quietly cried out in desperation
and personal terror and realized it was all over.
With an abysmal Super Power unveiling and the overwhelming
nonacceptance of GAT II, I feel something terrible has happened.
It's over.
Future historians throughout the galaxies and Interwebs
will memorialize November 2013 as its final moment.
YES!!!!
Since the beginning, Scn has operated with the Modus that "the next big thing', "new tech breakthrough" or "recovered lost tech" was, this time, gonna getcha what you've been looking for, haven't gotten yet or need to "resolve your case" once and for all. They've run out of rabbits to pull out of a hat and are now relegated to pulling dead rats out of garbage cans and bellowing, "Taddah!".
Face
Last edited:
Udarnik
Gold Meritorious Patron
It's a question of numbers. It's the classic salt tank problem from Differential Equations I (which, as a Calc I flunk out, Hubbard never took ):
Except our equation is a little more complicated. Usually the graphic in the DE textbook shows one spigot at the top pouring in and one at the bottom emptying out.
Now, the WUS, EUS and SA stats just released give us some idea of the entry rate. We have a little bit of a clue as to the exit rate as well, based on ESMB stats, personal interactions, and especially the known number of OTVIIs and OTVIIIs active.
It's obvious that the exit rate is greater than the entry rate. We're trying to solve for when Q(t) = 0 (or 1, only Davy left, assuming the cult kicks the bucket before he does).
But it's a little more complicated than that. It's as if the flow coming out of the exit spigot presses a lever that reduces the flow of the entry spigot, because every Ex who comes out poisons the well of potential recruits to a greater or lesser degree, but poison it they do.
Now the equation as outlined above is a student exercise even as a salt tank problem, because it assumes a constant flow rate, and the exit rate is also a function of how much solution there is in the tank - the more solution, the greater the flow, because the water pressure is pushing on the exit spigot. This, too has an analogy with he Co$ - at high numbers of Scilons, there is a good mix of true believers, sort-of-believers, and heretics. The latter two fuel the high exit rates we've seen in the past few decades. But as Q(t) decreases, the rate of exit decreases because the only people left are the true believers who need not just one, but a series of catastrophic events in order to leave, or perhaps, if we strain the analogy a bit, they are the salt that's precipitated out of the solution and now coats the inner surface oft he tank, never to be dislodged at all. Even if they all are capable of leaving, in the real world the last few gallons of brine trickle out of the tank very slowly, since there is nothing pushing them out, and likewise, once the cult drops to a certain level, it will live on, zombie-like, slowly, slowly hemorrhaging members, but still "alive" in a technical sense.
That last observation begs the question: what, exactly, do we mean by "dead"? Is it really Q(t) = 0 or 1? Or is in Q(t) < 1000 or some arbitrary number that indicates the cult has now joined the living dead and is shambling off to the grave ever so slowly?
I don't know the answer, but the numbers tell me that the entry rate of new Steven Mangos is far less than the exit rate of long-standing members in the US. But what about Russia? Poland? Haiti?
The cult may have some life left in it after all. But it might be the life of the last few drops that dribble into your pants, no matter how you shake and dance.
):Q(t) is the amount of salt in the tank
Rate of
change of
Q(t)= Rate at
which Q(t)
enters the
tank
Rate at
which Q(t)
exits the
tank
where,
Rate of change of Q(t) = 
Rate at which Q(t) enters the tank = (flow rate of liquid entering) x
(concentration of substance in liquid entering)Rate at which Q(t) exits the tank = (flow rate of liquid exiting) x
(concentration of substance in liquid exiting)
Except our equation is a little more complicated. Usually the graphic in the DE textbook shows one spigot at the top pouring in and one at the bottom emptying out.
Now, the WUS, EUS and SA stats just released give us some idea of the entry rate. We have a little bit of a clue as to the exit rate as well, based on ESMB stats, personal interactions, and especially the known number of OTVIIs and OTVIIIs active.
It's obvious that the exit rate is greater than the entry rate. We're trying to solve for when Q(t) = 0 (or 1, only Davy left
, assuming the cult kicks the bucket before he does).But it's a little more complicated than that. It's as if the flow coming out of the exit spigot presses a lever that reduces the flow of the entry spigot, because every Ex who comes out poisons the well of potential recruits to a greater or lesser degree, but poison it they do.
Now the equation as outlined above is a student exercise even as a salt tank problem, because it assumes a constant flow rate, and the exit rate is also a function of how much solution there is in the tank - the more solution, the greater the flow, because the water pressure is pushing on the exit spigot. This, too has an analogy with he Co$ - at high numbers of Scilons, there is a good mix of true believers, sort-of-believers, and heretics. The latter two fuel the high exit rates we've seen in the past few decades. But as Q(t) decreases, the rate of exit decreases because the only people left are the true believers who need not just one, but a series of catastrophic events in order to leave, or perhaps, if we strain the analogy a bit, they are the salt that's precipitated out of the solution and now coats the inner surface oft he tank, never to be dislodged at all. Even if they all are capable of leaving, in the real world the last few gallons of brine trickle out of the tank very slowly, since there is nothing pushing them out, and likewise, once the cult drops to a certain level, it will live on, zombie-like, slowly, slowly hemorrhaging members, but still "alive" in a technical sense.
That last observation begs the question: what, exactly, do we mean by "dead"? Is it really Q(t) = 0 or 1? Or is in Q(t) < 1000 or some arbitrary number that indicates the cult has now joined the living dead and is shambling off to the grave ever so slowly?
I don't know the answer, but the numbers tell me that the entry rate of new Steven Mangos is far less than the exit rate of long-standing members in the US. But what about Russia? Poland? Haiti?
The cult may have some life left in it after all. But it might be the life of the last few drops that dribble into your pants, no matter how you shake and dance.
NoName
A Girl Has No Name
It's a question of numbers. It's the classic salt tank problem from Differential Equations I (which, as a Calc I flunk out, Hubbard never took
**SNIP**
That last observation begs the question: what, exactly, do we mean by "dead"? Is it really Q(t) = 0 or 1? Or is in Q(t) < 1000 or some arbitrary number that indicates the cult has now joined the living dead and is shambling off to the grave ever so slowly?
I don't know the answer, but the numbers tell me that the entry rate of new Steven Mangos is far less than the exit rate of long-standing members in the US. But what about Russia? Poland? Haiti?
Any equation should also control for the fact that Russian, Polish, and Hatian members will have less cash to start with, and thus be able to pour less water into the solution.
Well it is crashing down and I take great pleasure in that. Sometimes I'm so happy how bad the cult is doing that I get up and do a little
:dancer:jig
I do really, ask my husband.
And when the time comes and DM is gone and the cult is losing its property I will celebrate. Remember everyone, come to Benicia and I will buy everyone a drink to celebrate.
:dancer:jig
I do really, ask my husband.
And when the time comes and DM is gone and the cult is losing its property I will celebrate. Remember everyone, come to Benicia and I will buy everyone a drink to celebrate.
Udarnik
Gold Meritorious Patron
Axiom142
Gold Meritorious Patron
I think the current situation in South Africa gives us a clue where the CoS is heading, hopefully in the very near future. Joburg became an ‘Ideal Org’ back in 2003 and in 2005 it became ‘Old St Hill Size’. In 2007, the Solution to All the Problems in Scientology (phase I) AKA The Basics, hit like a Tsunami and the decline was meteoric.
Pretoria became an Ideal Org in Feb 2013 and the decline was even faster. Some of the highlights are:
This has apparently created such a panic, the Sea Ogres have gone into full ‘heads on pikes’ mode and declared a couple of dozen of their most dedicated (and most donating) members. Typically they are oblivious to the fact that this not only cuts off much of their funding and thus any chance of a revival, but these couple of dozen will get busy and cause many dozens more to leave. South Africa may not be considered very important to The Cult now, but the ripples will spread.
The whole sorry story is documented on an excellent blog here: http://backincomm.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/pretorias-heydays-over-before-they-began/#more-826
Axiom142
Pretoria became an Ideal Org in Feb 2013 and the decline was even faster. Some of the highlights are:
- Francois Groenewald, one of the GATII Supervisors who returned from Flag after his training, left staff after his wife was threatened with a declare for not wanting to leave her job at the Corbetts. He had to pay for his own air-ticket to get back to South Africa as the org could not afford a return flight for him. [They send someone out for vital training and then can’t afford to bring him back. Only in The Cult does this make perfect sense]
- Yet another GATII trained Supervisor, David Goldberg, has not been seen for a while and would seem to be missing in action.
- Another GATII trainee, Sipho Dlamini, a non-Scientologist at the time of being recruited for staff, was sent to Flag for GATII training and has not been seen since.
- Pretoria org has only one single-hatted auditor (Paul) on foundation staff. Other than this, the Tech Sec Day, C/S Day and Snr C/S Day double-hat as auditors. [Seriously, one dedicated auditor for an ‘Ideal Org’? Back in the day, many missions had more than that.]
- One public visiting the org recently reported than in the hour he was on the premises, he saw exactly 4 staff – receptionist, a supervisor and two others huddled in an office having a meeting of some kind. The coffee shop was completely unmanned.
- At the time of the opening, Pretoria boasted a staff compliment of approximately 70 people. Today, just 11 months later, the staff numbers have dwindled down to around 30 – less than half of the staff are left.
This has apparently created such a panic, the Sea Ogres have gone into full ‘heads on pikes’ mode and declared a couple of dozen of their most dedicated (and most donating) members. Typically they are oblivious to the fact that this not only cuts off much of their funding and thus any chance of a revival, but these couple of dozen will get busy and cause many dozens more to leave. South Africa may not be considered very important to The Cult now, but the ripples will spread.
The whole sorry story is documented on an excellent blog here: http://backincomm.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/pretorias-heydays-over-before-they-began/#more-826
Axiom142
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Ah, the more they "declare" the less of a pool they have left to polute.
So, I hope they continue to tear through orgs and throw more people out.
What's not to love ?
Not long ago I started searching for good friends I knew were once very gung ho.
Over 95 % last did services betweem 1993 & 1996
One dear friend still in, still dedicated, still loyal told me quietly there is no way no matter how much I wanted to ( and I really don't ) "come back" htere is no way under the current "scene" that could happen. I was advised to " stay away ".
And then a week later some org calls me wanting me to come in, join staff, and audit for them in their HGC !
So I don't wonder WTF happened.
So, I hope they continue to tear through orgs and throw more people out.
What's not to love ?
Not long ago I started searching for good friends I knew were once very gung ho.
Over 95 % last did services betweem 1993 & 1996
One dear friend still in, still dedicated, still loyal told me quietly there is no way no matter how much I wanted to ( and I really don't ) "come back" htere is no way under the current "scene" that could happen. I was advised to " stay away ".
And then a week later some org calls me wanting me to come in, join staff, and audit for them in their HGC !
So I don't wonder WTF happened.
Bea Kiddo
Crusader
1986 I was still eating beans and rice.
2000 we got hamburgers on Tues.
2014 I live a normal life, I have no idea what Scn eats.
Sorry, I could not resist to answer like this.... (the information is factual...
)
EP - Ethics Particle
Gold Meritorious Patron
1986 I was still eating beans and rice.
2000 we got hamburgers on Tues.
2014 I live a normal life, I have no idea what Scn eats.
Sorry, I could not resist to answer like this.... (the information is factual...
Keep the baby, Faith!
EP
Similar threads
