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 www.exscn2.net.



Should Scientologists have the right to practice Scientology?

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Emma, Apr 26, 2013.

View Users: View Users
  1. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation


    His focus was on making money ... and in that he was successful.

    :coolwink:
     
  2. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    He[Hubbard] got the technology to a point where he had a sort of assembly line as he called it. And he told me he was putting all these square ball bearings on the assembly line, and then turning them into round ball bearings at the other end.
    John McMaster, form a 1985 interview, referring to the 1960s.​

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Not all bad. IMO, Scientology was designed to be "good" on the outside and "bad" on the inside. :)
     
  4. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Yep. Another way of saying that is Hubbard strategically placed various "good ideas" and "useful methods" within the larger subject, and especially near the beginning of any person's involvement with Scientology. These various "good ideas" and "useful methods" acted as a lure, as bait, to attract the person to the larger general subject (which contains a great deal of deceit, control and trickery).

    The person was also encouraged (tricked) into misidentifying these various "good ideas" and "useful methods" with all things Hubbard and Scientology. Hubbard studied about the identification and association of ideas and thought when he was looking over Korzybski's subject. He also learned about "fixed ideas", and he well caused his own followers to adopt various incorrect identifications, associations and fixed ideas.

    For example, many people talk about how they enjoyed the lower auditing, such as Life Repair, the Grades, and even Objectives, and I for one most definitely incorrectly ASSUMED for awhile that this "great stuff" must exist everywhere in Scientology. Of course, I paid attention, and I saw rather quickly that this was NOT true. The great experiences I had with early auditing did NOT extrapolate equally to the operation of the organization, to other aspects of the subject, and even to Hubbard himself. But, I was swept away for awhile in the intense experiences that I was having from the auditing, and I falsely assumed that everything else in and about Scientology was equally amazing. Hubbard, the way Scientology is setup, and the way it functions very much demands such "A=A=A" thinking. Interestingly, this is just another of many contradictions, because while Hubbard is talking about "reducing identifications of the reactive mind", he is creating them in other ways in the minds of his followers! :duh:

    Hubbard worked hard to make it appear that Scientology was an integrated and complete subject, and also built into the organization the strict view that members may NOT ever examine and choose to use any isolated aspect of the subject apart from the "whole rest of it". Hubbard claimed over and over that it "only worked" when ALL of it was there working together - Ethics, Tech and Admin.

    Ethics - the nonstop oppressive control

    Tech - the auditing (the good and the bad)

    Admin - the Scientology organization, especially the management section known as the Sea Org

    Hubbard stressed and forced the idea that ALL THREE must be present for Scientology "to work". There is no doubt to me, that as a MIND CONTROL oppressive scam, yes, very much so, all three needed to be present! :ohmy:

    I do agree somewhat that if large amounts of the Ethics and Admin are removed from the overall subject, that what is left might be useful and even helpful to some folks in some other context.
     
  5. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    IMO, the nature of auditing changes - from, essentially, abreaction, to, essentially, hypnosis - roughly around the time that it goes from non-confidential to confidential, if the person is properly "set up," he or she won't notice.
     
  6. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

    Student of Trinity,

    Stipulated (again): You are one smart dude.

    Like you, I don't think Scientology is coherent. I also don't think that it matters whether Scientology is perfectly coherent because its dangers don't rely on it being perfectly coherent.

    BTW, I particularly agree with your assessment: "... the 'what's true is what's true for you' line seems to me to encourage delusion, because it seems like it encourages everyone to look carefully before committing, but in practice it can all too easily encourage people to stop looking as soon as they feel a few good vibes."

    I am guessing that maybe one-tenth of 1% of ex-Scientologists have even a scintilla of interest in continuing to waste any more of their lives than they already have in parsing Scientology very carefully. Looking for coherence is essentially what Scientologists spent decades doing. Few of us have any stomach left for that.

    I also reject the idea that if this activity doesn't appeal to me that I'm somehow supporting Scientology or am a clueless dupe who worked less hard or sacrificed less than others.

    After 15 years in the cult and 25 years of onion-peeling, I know sufficiently well that Scientology is sufficiently unworkable and sufficiently dangerous that I will not practice it and that I will discourage others from practicing it. I'm simply done wandering very far down that rabbit hole anymore. I've also found I'm not particularly compatible with those who enjoy their time underground parsing Scientology tech over and over, either to prove its perfection or its evil. To me, those seem like different strains of Hubbardism.

    In the end, everyone does what they do because it meets their own needs.

    TG1
     
  7. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    I can see that the word "coherent" has become problematic, so I'll edit it from the original post. The meaning remains the same:


    That there is a totality of doctrine, ranging from the publicized, to that for members only, to that for specific members only, to the advertized-confidential, to the secret-(not-advertized and denied)-confidential, and that these components of the doctrine could be assembled in a very big room, and, that these components have a relationship to each other, are part of a xxxxxxxx whole, complement each other and, when examined as a totality, like the assembled pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, begin to show a picture, and that picture is not a nice picture.

    Noting this, laying it all out, and analyzing it, assembling all the jigsaw pieces of the secretive doctrine of Scientology and, then, standing back and taking a look at the picture that appears, is something that Scientology wants very much not to happen.
     
  8. In present time

    In present time Gold Meritorious Patron

    its a mystery sandwich from beginning to end. but then youve already been told that mysterys are suppresive, so somehow it doesnt occur that you have never had so many as now. and also just being given orders to do an action and told so many times that the details of a project are on a need to know basis. you. join scientology reaching hard for that "truth revealed"level, only to find out that the truth was, it was all a lie.
     
  9. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    yes.
     
  10. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    :clap:

    You said that VERY well Veda! :thumbsup:

    The Church of Scientology (and Hubbard) NEVER wants/wanted anybody to actually examine it or look at it from any "big picture view". The way for Scientology to keep duping its followers is for their view to remain stuck within the inside, with the "smaller view", within the context of the Hubbard paradigm as a tow-the-line true believer.

    The C of S or Hubbard would NEVER suggest or encourage any person to actually study the factual history of himself and/or Scientology. Within the Church of Scientology context, the ONLY thing they want you to "study" and accept is their PR, claims, assertions and lies. If you dispute ANY of it, then YOU get handled or declared an SP.

    In the real world people are encouraged to look, observe, investigate and acquire facts upon which to make an informed decision. Within the confines of a group operating on ALL that subject materials of Scientology, with none omitted, such as any version of the Church of Scientology at any point in time, the followers are NEVER encouraged to do that. Instead they are told ONLY to read, study, duplicate and understand the dogma just as written, with no questioning, no criticism, no analysis and no form of investigation. The ONLY way to interact with the subject within Scientology is to ACCEPT COMPLETELY WITHOUT QUESTION.

    Within the Church of Scientology followers are prevented from ever looking honestly at separate pieces, much less to stand back and view the whole jigsaw puzzle.

    :scnsucks:
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2013
  11. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    What a ridiculous generality. What definition of "the tech" are you using? Do you actually believe that all of Scientology's "tech" works (i.e. delivers what was promised)?

    That certainly doesn't match the history of Scientology, both inside and outside of the official organization. Yes, some of "the tech" appears to provide some benefit to some people. But 60 years of application in all sorts of "hows" "whens" and "atmospheres" has not resulted in even one Release, one Clear or one OT.

    Small benefits have sometimes been achieved, but without the big, promised results that are Scientology's purported goals, can "the tech" really be called workable in the long run?

    Or do you propose that "the tech" be judged only on what each individual process may or may not accomplish without any reference to how it (doesn't) contribute towards the alleged big goals of Scientology?

    Bill
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2013
  12. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    I was reading Mike rinder blog today, and Luis Garcia letter:

    http://www.mikerindersblog.org/a-letter-from-garcia/

    What I found interesting is this line:

    "LRH clearly lays out the 2 major stats for Scientology Orgs:“Orgs have only 2 major final valuable products. One is well-trained auditors. The other is satisfied pcs.
    …Tech and Admin policy exist only to assist making these two products IN VOLUME.”

    I gotta laugh my ass off. "satisfied pc's". WTF does not mean???????
    :laugh:

    Success stories. :roflmao:

    Doesn't say PC's with abilities gained.
     
  13. Anonycat

    Anonycat Crusader

    No, one cannot name that 'workable'. That would be an accident, an anomaly. I agree that it is odd that someone got something out of such a social travesty.
     
  14. Gib

    Gib Crusader


    :thumbsup:

    hubbards millions of words are just a sales job or sales pitch to convince.

    that's why he said "he failed" as Sarge said in Lawrence Wright's book.
     
  15. Hubbard also said you should brush your teeth in The Way To Happiness ... how did that work out for him?

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Idle Morgue

    Idle Morgue Gold Meritorious Patron

    I was reading Mike rinder blog today, and Luis Garcia letter:

    http://www.mikerindersblog.org/a-letter-from-garcia/

    What I found interesting is this line:


    "LRH clearly lays out the 2 major stats for Scientology Orgs:“Orgs have only 2 major final valuable products. One is well-trained auditors. The other is satisfied pcs.
    …Tech and Admin policy exist only to assist making these two products IN VOLUME.”

    I gotta laugh my ass off. "satisfied pc's". WTF does not mean???????
    :laugh:

    I try not to use my attention units on a "figure-figure" of what scientology is actually doing but should not be - using scientology to explain it.:dizzy::dizzy::dizzy::headspin::headspin::headspin::headspin::dizzy::dizzy::dizzy::headspin::headspin::headspin::headspin:
     
  17. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation


    It means "PC's" who (for whatever reason) haven't requested a refund.

    Yet.



    :hysterical:
     
  18. Anonycat

    Anonycat Crusader

    I have to say - the film that those stills were taken from - creeps me out SO bad, he's like a drunk madman who also owns a maw of rot. Disgusting. In fact, he says that he's insane in that film. And laughs.
     
  19. Anonycat

    Anonycat Crusader

    Exactly what I was going to say. :)
     
  20. Idle Morgue

    Idle Morgue Gold Meritorious Patron

    Ask Jamie DeWolf - his grandfather was L Ron Hubbard's first son, Ron Jr. Ron changed his name to DeWolf. Hear what Jamie has to say about Scientology and how it helped his family.

    http://www.jamiedewolf.com/