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

Keeping Scientology Working and OTIII Evaluations

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by lionheart, Jul 29, 2009.

  1. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    Taken together with KSW, none of those identities even approaches the totality and exclusive nature of 'I am a Scientologist', although, in some cases, some may try.

  2. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    So true. The incredibly involved and intricate nature of Scientology indoctrination of KSW is very unique. Hubbard really mastered the techniques of how to saddle his members with a VERY TIGHT, RESTRICTIVE, and HEAVY "identity".

    "I am saving every man, woman and child from eternal oblivion!":omg: And, if I refuse to accept my duty in this noble venture, then something must be wrong with me!

    While some fundamentalist Christian and Muslim groups get close at times with their one-sided view regarding the sole legitimacy and value of their own method of "salvation", NONE of them ever codified a system like Hubbard did to take the raw unbelieving person and effectively turn them into and keep them functioning as a raving fanatic (who for all practical purposes appear to be "normal" in most situations).
  3. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    As usual, you over emphasize the importance of scientology. You also underestimate the "significance" humans have long associated with their groups - e.g. Crusader, Knight Templar, Mafiosa, Aryan Race, Condottieri, ....

    Mark A. Baker
  4. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    "Ironic" in scio land is I-Ron- y.
    We know what that means.
  5. Div6

    Div6 Crusader

    This book is a "must-read" for any "-ist"...

    The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements is a social psychology book by Eric Hoffer published in 1951 which discusses the psychological causes of fanaticism.
  6. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    From Wikipedia:

    "Hoffer argues that mass movements such as fascism and communism (and Scientology) spread by promising a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so, mass movements need to devalue both the past and the present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole."

    Sound familiar?:omg:

    glorious future - Cleared Planet, "world without war, crime and insanity", having OT abilities

    willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals - low pay, work 16 hours every day, allow all previous family and friends to fade away, donate huge amounts of money (take loans you really can't afford)

    frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state - the Scientology tech of finding the "ruin" pushes each prospect right into this dissatisfaction; always wanting to "get better in the future" with more auditing, new rundowns, etc.

    imaginary self - I am a Clear, I am a Scientologiust, I am upstat, I am an OT, I am so incredibly ethical and good, we are saving every man, woman and child from eternal oblivion ("pure as the white driven snow")

    joining a collective whole - we are the elite, wogs are dumb and ignorant of the "truth" of who and what we are and where we are going, the GROUP is senior to all else in Scientology since ONLY Scientology has the TRUTH, and can free beings for all eternity; events, briefings and "memberships" enforce this aspect of the cult initiation
  7. thetagal

    thetagal Patron

    Reply to OT III evaluations

    LRH never said we shouldn't evaluate. In book one he talks about auditors needing to evaluate the case. The auditor's code state that a person shouldn't evaluate the pc's case in session.

    So how do we evaluate the pc's case in session? Endless ways, of course, but basically saying something is true for the pc that is not true for the pc.

    OT III materials are studied out of session. If a pc has a big disagreement with the materials he is sent to review to find out what is going on.

    He would never be forced to run something he didn't accept and didn't agree with. He would never run something that didn't read, nor would he run something that was reading on something other than the charge expected. For example "apples" reads on pc, but he thinks apples is a vegetable. Or "apples" reads and pc protests, says run before.

    Basic auditing would be clearing up the m/u in the first example and clearing up the protest in the second, not running "apples".

    Only if there were charge on apples would apples be run. So if basic auditing is understood, there can be NO evaluation of the OT III materials. Things that read, run. Things that don't read, don't run.

    The original History of Man was called "What to Audit". There are two sides to auditing, how to audit and what to audit. All along LRH suggested things to audit, remember "birth" from first book? But did he ever say to run it if it didn't present itself for handling? No.

    You have written up a huge case for how come it is evaluation. Proved it well within your framework. But your framework is not that of an auditor who understands auditing.

    THAT is an evaluation, but it is out of session. It is not to put you down as an auditor, but to state that you need better understanding or you will never be able to run OT III (or not run it with a huge cog and VGI's)

    LRH said that Inc II wasn't something everyone had. Do you have an issue with that? Or did you not read that part?

    LRH said that Inc I we all have. True, or not true?

    If I had a pc that asserted that Inc I (as laid out) was not the way it happened, I'd certainly find out what he thought did happen and run that.
    That is just common sense.

    I'm sorry to see your long post on OT III being evaluative, because it is a huge protest, and obviously somehow you really were evaluated for. In other words, there was out-tech.

    But presenting this to others who may have similar out tech on their case just feeds the fire. Only a proper OT review puts the fires out.

    Now that statement is also an evaluation. Evaluations are not necessarily bad. Only when they occur in session by an auditor.
  8. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    By the time you do OT 3 you will always "Play Ron's game" whichever move you make. Even *not* "running" something because you think it has no "charge" on it, is a move you choose to make from within Ron's loony chess board. You are inside the truman show, as Tory says.
    Like being stuck inside a labyrinth of mirrors, you can ask youself who you are looking at in any particular mirror.
    Is that me? Yes? No? Play the game and pretend you are becoming more sane, more free, OR get yourself out of the labyrinth to see how your "free-and-not free" was all set by hubbard.