ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Good things in Scientology

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Veda, Feb 28, 2013.

View Users: View Users
  1. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    I'll start.

    Good things:

    The people, or at least most of them. (Yes, they're naive.)

    The idea of a layman-oriented mental health and self-improvement movement.

    A further development of the ideas of abreaction (getting something off your chest), and a re-write and re-working of certain mystical and magic(k)al ideas.


    Bad things:

    The subject of Scientology corrupts good people, and makes smart people stupid on the subject of Scientology.

    Exploits the idea and practice of abreaction, and also exploits information from other unacknowledged antecedents.

    Does not acknowledge old time Scientologists who contributed many ideas which, in turn, were also corrupted and used to forward Scientology's hidden agenda.

    There are many more... good and bad.
  2. cameraderie; esprit
  3. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    That's the good. And the bad...?

    From a 1986 interview of Martin Samuels, former Mission Holder, and founder of the Delphian School, from the 'Reflections' chapter of the book, 'L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?'

    "Hubbard operated according to a couple of key patterns.

    "The first pattern involved basically decent well intentioned people... no one was able to rise in the organization to a point of any real proximity to him, without being attacked and vilified...

    "And of course the next person thinks he or she is immune [from this pattern]...

    "The next pattern: It's reap and rape. Hubbard would let the reins loose. He'd let people believe they really could get on with it... He'd let people believe they really could prosper to the full extent of their own ability, and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

    "And, with that kind of freedom, prosperity does occur, Inevitably, though, he'd come along and rape and pillage and rip off and take what had been produced. The most dramatic example of this was '82, '83, when he 'raped' his most decent people in management along with the mission holders, and looted the entire mission network.

    "And look at this pattern... He surrounded himself with absolute hooligans as 'managers'; guys who beat the shit out of people. This man, who 'is this OT, the author of Science of Survival, completely able to predict human behavior', surrounded himself with ruthless people - like Miscavige - who got there because they emulated Hubbard's savagery. They emulated his total willingness to completely break, use, and discard another person.

    "And then after their hands were so bloody - and the only reason their hands were bloody was that they were doing what Hubbard wanted - when it finally started to get to the point where it couldn't be tolerated by people anymore, Hubbard wiped them out. Then he said. 'My God! I didn't know!' Scapegoat. He even did that to his own wife, who went to jail in his place... [Note that Miscavige is now becoming the new scapegoat.]


    The good is usually visible, the bad is usually kept behind the scenes.

    These are comparable to the idea of the solvent (truth), and the adhesive (trap). The person is attracted by the solvent, which gradually evaporates, leaving the adhesive: the glue.
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
  4. Xenu's Boyfriend

    Xenu's Boyfriend Silver Meritorious Patron

  5. Free Being Me

    Free Being Me Crusader

    People are leaving :clap:
  6. the bad...

    well an awful lot of the bad wasn't happening where and when i was active...

    but there was enough of the totalitarian that i wasn't there all that long. three times it happened. three strikes. one out.

    for more than thirty years, thirty three to be exact, i'd stop into an org just to take up a dipstick on it and a little comm with people, paid off my "freeloader debt" in 2004 and had a bit of an INTENSE experience back at fcdc



    i read coreydon, stuck my nose onto the net for the first time and the forced abortion story broke



    totalitarian conditions
  7. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    If there were no good in Scientology, it wouldn't be much of a trap.

    The good is used as disguise, and as bait to lead-in the unsuspecting.

    It may seem counter intuitive, but recognizing the good in Scientology is as important as recognizing the bad, as long as one also recognizes that Scientology has a dark core, a dark core which dominates.

    And dominates not just the organization but the subject.

    And does so even with outside the CofS Scientology.

    As we have recently witnessed, the well meaning but naive people of Scientology's Freezone are not exempt from being influenced by this darkness.

  8. yes...

    a dark core
  9. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

  10. Idle Morgue

    Idle Morgue Gold Meritorious Patron

    Good things in Scientology ~ the door out!!:happydance:

    The red vols - made a very nice jack for my car so I could change the tire - very sturdy!!

    The green vols - they burn nice and slow - used them in the fireplace when my furnace went out!

    The Way to Happiness booklets - mixed with water - made a nice mash for starving people in Haiti

    Other than that - I am out of ideas!!
  11. Xenu's Boyfriend

    Xenu's Boyfriend Silver Meritorious Patron

    Veda, I get your point, and in some ways I really shouldn't comment at all because I was never in the church.

    I was being provocative with my "crickets", saying, in other words, "Don't everyone rush in to share at once".

    Still, I used to think, yes - there must be some good things, at least the beginning, that keep people coming back.

    But one of the things addicts know about getting high is that nothing is like the very first time. In other words, like any other addiction, the wins usually happen at the beginning and you end up chasing those wins for the rest of your active addiction until you finally get help or die.

    I see Scientology as an addiction.

    This doesn't mean that there weren't moments of connection here and there.

    But I feel like that's more about human beings being together than something that has to do with "Scientology" as a practice.

    In other words, are you saying, "Good things in Scientology" meaning good times in the church despite everything, or do you mean, "Good things in Scientology" in reference to the technology - something salvaged from the ruins?

    Either way, it may not be my place to comment, but I feel "good things" and "Scientology" just don't go down easy after reading Jenna's book.
  12. Student of Trinity

    Student of Trinity Silver Meritorious Patron

    I can't talk from experience about either good or bad in Scientology, but it suddenly struck me that if we're distinguishing two kinds of stuff in Scientology, we should also be distinguishing two kinds of criticism of Scientology. If there's good and bad in Scn, then there is criticism of the bad for being bad, and criticism of the good for not being good enough. Distinguishing between the two kinds of criticism helps avoid the straw man fallacy of pretending that critics never see any good in the subject at all.

    If somebody buys some frozen beef lasagne that is really made with horse meat, the point of the complaint is the false labeling. Nobody's saying that horse meat isn't safe to consume. Pointing out that horse meat is healthy enough is not a valid defense for false labeling. And of course the reason for the false labeling is that most western consumers prefer beef to horse. Horse lasagne wouldn't sell. So the problem isn't that horse lasagne is bad, but that it isn't good enough, and in particular, isn't as good as what it claims to be on the box.

    Now if some of the other products in the horse lasagne company's line contain actual toxins, that would be a different complaint. A more serious one, of course. But the fact that the horse lasagne wasn't actually poisonous still wouldn't be a defense against the charge that it wasn't as good as it was made out to be. In the same way, critics have two separate and different criticisms of Scientology's products. Some are bad, and some just aren't good enough. If somebody expresses interest in Scientology, then warning them away from the actively bad parts is urgent, but warning them about mediocre stuff being oversold, when you can get better stuff cheaper elsewhere, is also decent behavior. It's not just obsessive negativity or prejudice.

    Or are there really three classes of things in Scientology: the bad, the not-good-enough, and the outstandingly good? If there were any really outstandingly good parts, that would be another story. The thing is that I just haven't heard much about this. The things I've seen presented as 'good parts' in Scientology have always struck me as more not-too-bad than outstandingly good — horse instead of poison, so to speak.
  13. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    Yeah, Scientology is a $500,000 buzz that you try to keep going by somehow avoiding the buzzkill called reality.
  14. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Find an auditor. Do the lower bridge. Then you'll have some "mass". :eyeroll:

    Or not, as you may wish. But theorizing about the results of auditing is ridiculous. It makes about as much sense as theorizing about changes in the nature of consciousness which might arise from an alteration in the value of the fine structure constant.

    Mark A. Baker
  15. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    The map is not the territory. :)
  16. Xenu's Boyfriend

    Xenu's Boyfriend Silver Meritorious Patron

    I think I get where you're going here, Student. To use your analogy, someone tells you they are serving Filet Mignon in a restaurant. You go in, sit down and they charge you the Filet Mignon price. Then they switch the meat on you and give you horse instead. When you complain and say, "Wait a minute, I paid for Filet Mignon, this isn't fair!" someone says, "Well, maybe you didn't get what we promised, but hey, horse meat has protein too."

    So basically, the protein from the horse is considered a "win", even though deception was involved to get it and it wasn't what was promised.

    I appreciate this analogy because it brings up an important point for me which I often forget: if CoS was free, if auditing and moving up the bridge were free, then maybe it wouldn't make such a difference when Scientology doesn't deliver what it promises. If you're not happy with Buddhism, or Christianity, go find another religion.

    But the fact that the Church of Scientology makes you pay, and pay very high prices for their product, means that they have a responsibly to deliver to the consumer what they say their product will do. (It's amazing how their religious designation let's them off the hook.)

    You couldn't sell someone a Mercedes that drove like a Big Wheel. You would be taken to court and put out of business. But somehow (and I've learned this from the opinions I've read in this forum) the church continues to crank out "Clears" and "OT's" knowing damn well that there is no such thing as a Clear and that OT's have no special powers. This would seem a direct violation of a consumer's trust. But they get away with it, over and over again.

    So, to a certain degree, who gives a fuck if you get some incidentals wins here and there - like free samples when you buy an expensive bottle of perfume. If you came home and found that the bottle was empty and called the store, you'd be pissed. you wouldn't expect to hear - we know the bottle's empty, but hey, the samples are nice, aren't they? The samples only matter in the context of the perfume, otherwise they are a slap in the face and offensive.

    So, my point is, incidental wins are great, but can they justify being fucked-over and paying all that money to buy "Clear" or a particular OT level and ending up with someone who has no abilities over MEST, no abilities to turn off their reactive mind, no abilities to avoid sickness, no abilities to leave their body - all the things that Scientology advertises and takes people's money for? It's like putting someone on the RPF and when they complain later in court about abuse, saying, "Hey, at least you dropped the extra ten pounds you wanted to lose from all the running and the rice and beans." Hey look, a win!

    It may not be my place to say it, but I'm going to fucking say it anyway. It's time to stop focusing on Scientology wins. It really messes up the argument that Scientology is a destructive cult that needs to be stopped. The way some people go on about wins, it makes Scientology in the public eye seem like a slightly demonic version of "Mary Kay".
  17. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    I bought a box of Cracker Jacks and was so excited to see if it really had a prize inside.

    I eagerly dug through the box but there was no prize. I couldn't believe it. Sadly, I dumped out the contents into the garbage and then something caught my eye. There it was! A shiny marvelous object of wonder, sparking magical light into the universe. I carefully picked it up and examined its mystical perfection.

    Then I saw that my finger was bleeding and noticed it was actually a shard of glass. Who could have betrayed me this horrific way?

    But, then I suddenly realized that luckily I hadn't mistaken it for a Cracker Jack and eaten it (ripping apart my viscera into a hemorrhaging pulp of death).... which I took as a big win!

    Thanks Ron!
  18. Student of Trinity

    Student of Trinity Silver Meritorious Patron

    No, thanks. You see, your premise is false. It's like that old legend about the pagan court who were converted to Christianity by seeing a sparrow fly through their hall. The king supposedly decided that his experience of life was as transitory as the sparrow's transit, and so if the missionary could tell him about things beyond his ken, then he had to listen. An idiotic conclusion, as of course you will agree, because in fact there are any number of people, besides Christian missionaries, who can promise to tell about things beyond what we know. The king's kind of thinking only made sense in a primitive world where Christianity's only competitors were few and crude.

    'Try Scientology and see' only makes sense if you don't see many alternative uses for your time. Then, sure, you might as well invest a few hundred hours and a few thousand bucks. But I have hundreds of alternative uses of my time. There are plenty of spiritual practices that would, as I already know from my own experience, do me a world of good; yet I don't find time for them. I could also stand to get a lot more exercise.

    If I heard a convincing and coherent explanation of just exactly what the benefits of auditing would be — not 'might conceivably be', but 'very probably would be' — then I might be persuaded to try some Scientology. I haven't heard such. The concrete claims I've heard are unimpressive, and the impressive claims are as dubious as the e-mails from Nigerian bankers. And in this case, the appeal to give Scientology a try on the general premise that I shouldn't rely on theory is simply inadequate.

    We have to rely on theory, for triage. Today, we all have hundreds of candidates applying to be our guru. We cannot interview them all. We have to dismiss most of them based on their paper applications. For me, Scientology has not made the short list. It is not going to get my personal attention, at least until it can improve its résumé by quite a lot. There's nothing ridiculous about that at all. It only seems ridiculous to you, because for you Scientology has a privileged position.

    The phenomenon of Scientology is quite interesting. The Church of Scientology is an excellent case study of a cult. The subject of Scientology is not nearly so interesting, I'm afraid. I mean, look. The very fact that a thread like this even exists here is damning. It's actually a serious question, what the good things in Scientology are, or whether there are any. You don't get threads about 'the good things in antibiotics', 'the good things in microelectronics', 'the good things in regular exercise'. With stuff that is really outstandingly good, good enough to be worth everybody's personal attention, those topics just do not come up. Scientology is obviously not in that class. So how good can it really be?

    An afterthought: I did try some of Paul's robot exercises. Whatever was the first set suggested on his site. It took about half an hour, as I recall. So I could spare that much time to check it out. I found it relaxing, but no more so than I would expect something like that to be. I noticed no remarkable effects. I was happy to try this, because the investment required was modest, and because Paul's description of what to expect was clear and plausible. The theory was adequate to justify the attention required; it passed triage. It didn't really work for me, but that's life. At this level, I'm happy to try things. "Do the lower Bridge because I'll call you ridiculous until you do" is a less effective pitch for me.
  19. In present time

    In present time Gold Meritorious Patron

    Love that photo!
  20. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Good things:

    Now that you have those, get the Hell away from the dangerous cult built around them.