questions for scientologists

[Mimsey Borogrove]

In Tony O's blog he discusses various questions that Elizabeth Moss should have been asked. Sadly - he didn't poll ESMB for good questions. Let's right that wrong.

"Recently, Daily Beast reporter Marlow Stern interviewed actress and Scientologist Elisabeth Moss. Marlow has written some good Scientology stories over the years, and he’s no pushover. So we were glad to see that he took the opportunity to ask Moss not one but three questions about Scientology.
Unfortunately, she finessed each of them, and managed to say almost nothing about Scientology itself.
Here’s one non-answer, for example: “The things that I truly believe in are the things that I’ve mentioned, and I think that they’re very important. I think people should be allowed to talk about what they want to talk about and believe what they want to believe and you can’t take that away—and when you start to take that away, when you start to say ‘you can’t think that,’ ‘you can’t believe that,’ ‘you can’t say that,’ then you get into trouble.”...
"“In Dianetics, L. Ron Hubbard says a Clear has perfect memory, perfect eyesight, and perfect computation ability. If you’re a Scientology Clear, can you please repeat this question back to me in reverse?”
That’s a fun one from Phil Jones, who left Scientology and now isn’t allowed to see his two adult children, Mike and Emily, because they’re Sea Org members who have “disconnected” from him and his wife Willie." Etc

https://tonyortega.org/2019/04/30/q...st-elisabeth-moss-from-former-scientologists/

Here's my question - A) how many wives did Hubbard have? After 'splaining the answer to that, ask B) how many children did Hubbard father? C) then ask: How many are still in Scientology? D) Were any declared? E) Wouldn't that connection make Hubbard PTS?

Your turn.

Mimsey

 

[programmer_guy]

In an interview, Hubbard once said that he never had a 2nd wife.
How could he have had a 1st wife and a 3rd wife but not a 2nd wife?

 

[Dulloldfart]

I think media only get access to Scn celebs on the basis of being relatively nice and not playing hardball, and any that don't play the game are cut off from future access. So interviewers might tentatively ask "hard questions", but then have to accept whatever weaselly response they get. In addition, Scn celebs surely are drilled in evasive answers to any tough questions they might get.

Paul

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Fair point Paul, and it may also genuinely be that they don't know the seamier side of what goes on in the CofS and the Sea Org in particular. The information they get about such contentious topics as what really happened to Shelly Miscavige and Lisa MacPherson is likely to be heavily filtered, as is their access to anyone who could tell them any different.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Fair point Paul, and it may also genuinely be that they don't know the seamier side of what goes on in the CofS and the Sea Org in particular. The information they get about such contentious topics as what really happened to Shelly Miscavige and Lisa MacPherson is likely to be heavily filtered, as is their access to anyone who could tell them any different.

I agree but there is still the possibility of wilful, convenient ignorance.

Someone like Tom Cruise or John Travolta would have to know by now that there are things going on behind the scenes which, if they truly looked into them and did nothing, would make them complicit ... so, perhaps they choose not to look too closely.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I agree but there is still the possibility of wilful, convenient ignorance.

Someone like Tom Cruise or John Travolta would have to know by now that there are things going on behind the scenes which, if they truly looked into them and did nothing, would make them complicit ... so, perhaps they choose not to look too closely.

Good point. I've been out for so long I tend to forget about the self-imposed blinders good Scios wear that prevent them absorbing any information contrary to the official line.

How nuanced is "willful ignorance"? It might seem pretty straightforward to a never-in, but doesn't seem that way to me. Has this ever come up in a Scientology lawsuit?

Paul

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I agree but there is still the possibility of wilful, convenient ignorance.

Someone like Tom Cruise or John Travolta would have to know by now that there are things going on behind the scenes which, if they truly looked into them and did nothing, would make them complicit ... so, perhaps they choose not to look too closely.

You are making a lot of huge and overreaching assumptions.

You are only ASSUMING that Scn celebrities can read. If they cannot read, then they would not know anything is wrong with Scn.

You are only ASSUMING that Scn celebrities talk to people. If they don't talk to people, how would they know?

You are only ASSUMING that Scn celebrities have entourages with managers, agents, publicity agents, lawyers and a vast network of professional associates. And you ASSUME that one of them has told them about Scn. If nobody talks to them how would they know anything is wrong?

You are only ASSUMING that Scn celebrities have access to the Internet, TV and Radio. If they don't have any access to the internet and radio/tv, how would they learn the bad parts of Scientology.

You also ASSUME that Scn celebrities are able to observe and learn things. If they were not born with that particular talent, they would have no way of discovering that Scientology is a sociopathically sadistic and avaricious hoax.

CONCLUSION: Scn celebrities are saving the planet. In some cases (Mr. Cruise) they are messianically saving the universe. They have miraculous god-like powers. But none of that means that they get DevT'd with all unimportant stuff happening with Scn on this planet. Their attention is on the big game of freeing all beings from the eternal MEST trap. Therefore, they are simply too busy to take the time needed to learn that Scientology is a criminal cult that defrauds everyone they contact with a debilitating attack of "Big Lies", Gaslighting and outright Fraud every minute since 1950.

SUGGESTION: Award more jumbo medals to celebrities. This is "flowing power to power" and then they will help us escape from this slave planet.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Good point. I've been out for so long I tend to forget about the self-imposed blinders good Scios wear that prevent them absorbing any information contrary to the official line.

How nuanced is "willful ignorance"? It might seem pretty straightforward to a never-in, but doesn't seem that way to me. Has this ever come up in a Scientology lawsuit?

Paul

I don't know but I doubt it somehow, normal people (and lawyers) probably wouldn't believe it even possible that an adult in this brave new world could choose to be wilfully ignorant for decades about something that is supposedly so important to them.

We know that it is possible when on staff and under the tight control of the cofs but they are out and about and free to do as they wish. I'd have thought it would be a full time job avoiding the truth for decades as they seem to have done.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

You are making a lot of huge and overreaching assumptions.

You are only ASSUMING that Scn celebrities can read. If they cannot read, then they would not know anything is wrong with Scn.

You are only ASSUMING that Scn celebrities talk to people. If they don't talk to people, how would they know?

You are only ASSUMING that Scn celebrities have entourages with managers, agents, publicity agents, lawyers and a vast network of professional associates. And you ASSUME that one of them has told them about Scn. If nobody talks to them how would they know anything is wrong?

You are only ASSUMING that Scn celebrities have access to the Internet, TV and Radio. If they don't have any access to the internet and radio/tv, how would they learn the bad parts of Scientology.

You also ASSUME that Scn celebrities are able to observe and learn things. If they were not born with that particular talent, they would have no way of discovering that Scientology is a sociopathically sadistic and avaricious hoax.

CONCLUSION: Scn celebrities are saving the planet. In some cases (Mr. Cruise) they are messianically saving the universe. They have miraculous god-like powers. But none of that means that they get DevT'd with all unimportant stuff happening with Scn on this planet. Their attention is on the big game of freeing all beings from the eternal MEST trap. Therefore, they are simply too busy to take the time needed to learn that Scientology is a criminal cult that defrauds everyone they contact with a debilitating attack of "Big Lies", Gaslighting and outright Fraud every minute since 1950.

SUGGESTION: Award more jumbo medals to celebrities. This is "flowing power to power" and then they will help us escape from this slave planet.

I'm allowed to ASSUME whatever I like HH ... I'm an SP and that's what we do.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

I would think the ideal type questions to ask scientologists would be ones that create or expose cognitive dissonance in the scientologist. What questions would do that? That is the crux of my thread.

How many red flags have I glossed over in my years? How many have you passed over? When I started on the Basics and was going through DMSMH I ran into a corker. I was unable to continue past that point in the book.

When a year or so later, after my being declared, I was reading a criticism of All About Radiation, and I posted a question on ESMB about why didn't Hubbard ever correct the glaring errors? Paul responded "because he didn't give a rat's ass"

It was that exposure of my cognitive dissonance that Hubbard, the self proclaimed authority on standard tech, the researcher of deep truths, the person who flaunted KSW 1-10 and the importance of having the correct tech didn't give a rat's ass that his books were correct?

That really shook my stable data in the belief of the correctness of the tech. It really destroyed my faith in the workability of the tech. It was a cruel moment - realizing I had been had.

Thanks Paul.

What was the tipping point for you? What destroyed your belief in Scientology?

Mimsey

 

[programmer_guy]

I would think the ideal type questions to ask scientologists would be ones that create or expose cognitive dissonance in the scientologist. What questions would do that? That is the crux of my thread.

<snip>
Mimsey

That's Interesting.

BTW, that is also what Anthony Magnabosco aims to do in his "street epistemology" with christians.

 

[Dulloldfart]

When a year or so later, after my being declared, I was reading a criticism of All About Radiation, and I posted a question on ESMB about why didn't Hubbard ever correct the glaring errors? Paul responded "because he didn't give a rat's ass"

...

What was the tipping point for you? What destroyed your belief in Scientology?

It took me *years* to answer that big question of why Hubbard never fixed those book errors. I looked at every possibility I could think of. Finally, it was the only one that made sense.

My tipping point? Again, it was a slow process, lasting many years, gradually chipping away at it. One big factor was my development of PaulsRobot, proving that some of Hubbard's basic "tech data" (like the Magic of the Communication Cycle HCOB) was just plain wrong. Another was looking at Veda's documents repeatedly showing what a shyster Hubbard was, and again Veda's reference to Brian Ambry's Scientological Onion (short version at https://exscn.net/content/view/178/105/index.html ). ESMB was a big help.

Paul

 

[The_Fixer]

In an interview, Hubbard once said that he never had a 2nd wife.
How could he have had a 1st wife and a 3rd wife but not a 2nd wife?

Maybe he missed second year school.

He never then learned "2".

So, it's 1,3,4,5......

Either that. or he was just plain stupid!

I prefer the last explanation.

 

[strativarius]

I would think the ideal type questions to ask scientologists would be ones that create or expose cognitive dissonance in the scientologist. What questions would do that? That is the crux of my thread.

How many red flags have I glossed over in my years? How many have you passed over? When I started on the Basics and was going through DMSMH I ran into a corker. I was unable to continue past that point in the book.

When a year or so later, after my being declared, I was reading a criticism of All About Radiation, and I posted a question on ESMB about why didn't Hubbard ever correct the glaring errors? Paul responded "because he didn't give a rat's ass"

It was that exposure of my cognitive dissonance that Hubbard, the self proclaimed authority on standard tech, the researcher of deep truths, the person who flaunted KSW 1-10 and the importance of having the correct tech didn't give a rat's ass that his books were correct?

That really shook my stable data in the belief of the correctness of the tech. It really destroyed my faith in the workability of the tech. It was a cruel moment - realizing I had been had.

Thanks Paul.

[bcolor=#ffff00]What was the tipping point for you? What destroyed your belief in Scientology?[/bcolor]

Mimsey

What was the tipping point for you? What destroyed your belief in Scientology?

There have been several threads dedicated to this subject, in fact I even started one myself and got some very interesting answers. You can find it
here.

ETA: It was a real pain in the ass to find so I'm sure there must be an easier way to go about it than the way I did, going back in time page by page until I finally found it. The old software had a link to 'your threads', but I don't think Xenforo does.

 

[Dulloldfart]

ETA: It was a real pain in the ass to find so I'm sure there must be an easier way to go about it than the way I did, going back in time page by page until I finally found it. The old software had a link to 'your threads', but I don't think Xenforo does.

Just leave the search term box empty, click on search titles only, and enter user name.

Paul

 

[strativarius]

Just leave the search term box empty, click on search titles only, and enter user name.

Paul

Doh! I didn't notice that. Thanks, you're a star Paul, no doubt about it!

 

[Bill]

I would think the ideal type questions to ask scientologists would be ones that create or expose cognitive dissonance in the scientologist. What questions would do that? That is the crux of my thread.

Scientologists are well trained to reject and run away from attacks of any kind. I can't believe that anything with the flavor of an attack would work.

While I haven't had the opportunity, I think this might work:

• Pretend to be amazed and interested in Clear and OT. "I've heard about this!"
• Ask about those states.
• More and more asking. Specifics! Wow!
• Are you Clear? Are you never sick? Do you have perfect recall? Can you do lightening-fast calculations? And so forth.
• Are you an OT? What's it like? What cool things have you done? Tell me more!
• Try to make sure it isn't seen as an "attack" but "sincere", interested questions about those amazing states.

As long as you appear to be a possible convert, you might keep them talking. The more enthusiastic you appear about those "miraculous" states and the more the Scientologist is forced to examine claims vs. reality, the more cognitive dissonance should appear.

No Scientologists were I live so I can't test it out.

 

[Alex P. Keaton]

What was the tipping point for you? What destroyed your belief in Scientology?

It might not be fair for me to answer (since I am a never-in, and I never had any faith in Scientology). And I hope my response does not derail this thread. (Edit: Just found Strativarius' link to the "Tipping Point" thread several posts above me -- I probably posted in that thread too. But since we're "piling on" with our criticism of Hubbard here, I won't delete this post.)

In order of importance for me, here is a list:

1. Scientology is mentioned in the late Dr. Walter Martin's seminal book "Kingdom of the Cults". (As a U.S.A. generic Protestant person, this means Scientology is "Game Over" for me right there.)
2. They do not adhere to the old Jewish adage "The law of the land is the law". They are a law (and an "ethics" and "justice" system) unto themselves, they act as if they are above the law in the countries in which they operate.
3. Their teachings are not in harmony with the world around them (as explained by "the scientific method"). They might say "we refer sick parishioners to a medical doctor", but (a) that visit is often seriously delayed or denied, or (b) they try to substitute ineffective auditing or touch assists to cure many maladies where medical treatments or drugs offer a much better quality of life. They also train parents to advocate this for family members (John Travolta taking Jett off of his medication). When people start dying because of other people's brainwashing, that is a clue that something is completely, unacceptably wrong.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

No Scientologists where I live so I can't test it out.

There are a lot more Scientologists than is commonly believed.

Last week a UPS driver fumbled with and dropped his pen. I picked it up for him and handed it back.

He then looked me in the eye and said "Thank You".

The odds of him using both TR-O and TR-2 are about a billion to one. That's all the proof I needed.

So I quietly smiled to myself, knowing with certainty that he is winning on his bridge.


(ps: Why do 90% of the "OT WINS" in Advance! magazine end in the OT "smiling to themselves"? Is that the actual and only OT power that Scientologists gain? The power to create a ZERO-FLOW WIN AND ZERO-FLOW VGIs? I think so.)

 

[Alex P. Keaton]

A couple more reasons why my belief in Scientology, as a never-in, was never destroyed, or rather could never be established in the first place:

1. (mentioned above)
2. (mentioned above)
3. (mentioned above)
4. They reserve the right to cancel certificates and awards (and to persecute "apostates"). If I go to a Bible College somewhere, and I obtain a degree, and become an ordained minister, nobody has the right to cancel that. Nobody. And if someone wants to kick me out or shun me from a church group (like the Amish), I am free to consider myself "still a believer". I still regard my salvation and eternity as secure. The only person who can tell me otherwise is the God I believe in. If some earthly group wants to punish me by sending PIs after me and going through my trash and poisoning my dog because we have a doctrinal difference, they are not legitimate.
5. They also reserve the right to decide who is allowed in at the bottom (no FBI, CIA, perhaps not even my father who worked for the US Post Office). They also reserve the right to make OT8 (and possibly lower levels) "invitation only". If you want everyone in the world to be converted to/saved by your religion, forbidding anyone and everyone you don't like is not the way to go.
6. TR-L. "Outflowing false data". The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. It is okay to lie to people for the greater good of Scientology. If they cannot be perfectly honest from our first meeting/encounter, I will never join them.